Diabetes

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether dapagliflozin added to guideline-recommended therapies is effective and safe over the long-term to reduce the rate of renal and cardiovascular events in patients across multiple chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, with and without type 2 diabetes.

Design. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in CKD (DAPA-CKD) trial (NCT03036150) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter event-driven, clinical trial sponsored by Astra-Zeneca. It was conducted at 386 sites in 21 countries from February 2, 2017, to June 12, 2020. A recruitment period of 24 months and a total study duration of 45 months were initially planned. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population. This was the first randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD.

Setting and participants. This trial randomly assigned 4304 adult participants with CKD stages 2 to 4 (an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 25 to 75 mL/min/1.73 m² of body-surface area) and elevated urinary albumin excretion (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000, measured in mg of albumin per g of creatinine) to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, lupus nephritis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, recent immunosuppressive therapy for primary or secondary kidney disease, New York Heart Association class IV congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke or transient ischemic attacks, or recent coronary revascularization or valvular repair/replacement. All participants received a stable dose of renin–angiotensin system inhibitor for 4 weeks prior to screening, and the vast majority received a maximum tolerated dose at enrollment. Randomization was monitored to ensure that at least 30% of participants recruited did not have diabetes and that no more than 10% had stage 2 CKD. Participants were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (n = 2152) or matching placebo (n = 2152) to ensure a 1:1 ratio of the 2 regimens. Dapagliflozin and placebo had identical appearance and administration schedules. All participants and trial personnel (except members of the independent data monitoring committee) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. After randomization, in-person study visits were conducted at 2 weeks, at 2, 4, and 8 months, and at 4-month intervals thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of either a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes, in hierarchical order, were: (1) the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes; (2) a composite cardiovascular outcome defined as hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes; and (3) death from any cause. All outcomes were assessed by time-to-event analyses.

Given the extensive prior experience with dapagliflozin, only selected adverse events were recorded. These included serious adverse events, adverse events resulting in the discontinuation of dapagliflozin or placebo, and adverse events of interest to dapagliflozin (eg, volume depletion symptoms, renal events, major hypoglycemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, events leading to higher risk of lower limb amputation, and lower limb amputations).

Main results. On March 26, 2020, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial because of clear efficacy on the basis of 408 primary outcome events. The participants were 61.8 ± 12.1 years of age, and 1425 participants (33.1%) were female. The baseline mean estimated GFR was 43.1 ± 12.4 mL/min/1.73 m², the median urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 949, and 2906 participants (67.5%) had type 2 diabetes. Over a median of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 197 participants (9.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 312 (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.72; P < 0.001). The number of participants who needed to be treated during the trial period to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 19 (95% CI, 15-27). The beneficial effect of dapagliflozin compared with placebo was consistent across all 8 prespecified subgroups (ie, age, sex, race, geographic region, type 2 diabetes, estimated GFR, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and systolic blood pressure) for the primary outcome. The effects of dapagliflozin were similar in participants with type 2 diabetes and in those without type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of each secondary outcome was similarly lower in the dapagliflozin-treated group than in the placebo group. The HR for the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.45-0.68; P < 0.001), and the HR for the composite cardiovascular outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = 0.009). Death occurred in 101 participants (4.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 146 participants (6.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004). The known safety profile of dapagliflozin was confirmed by the similar overall incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Conclusion. In patients with CKD, with or without type 2 diabetes, the risk of a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes was significantly lowered by dapagliflozin treatment.

Commentary

Although SGLT2 inhibitors were designed to reduce plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by increasing urinary glucose excretion in a non-insulin-dependent fashion, an increasing number of clinical trials have demonstrated their possible cardiovascular and renal benefits that extend beyond glycemic control. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance recommending the evaluation of long-term cardiovascular outcomes prior to approval and commercialization of new antidiabetic therapies to ensure minimum cardiovascular risks following the discovery of cardiovascular safety issues associated with antidiabetic compounds, including rosiglitazone, after drug approval. No one foresaw that this recommendation would lead to the discovery of new classes of antidiabetic drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP1] and SGLT2 inhibitors) that improve cardiovascular outcomes. A series of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, including empagliflozin,¹ canagliflozin,² and dapagliflozin,³ showed a reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis from 2019 found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 23% and the risk of progression of kidney failure by 45% in patients with diabetes.⁴ Thus, the strong and consistent evidence from these large and well-designed outcome trials led the American Diabetes Association in its most recent guidelines to recommend adding SGLT2 inhibitors to metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or CKD, regardless of baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c target.⁵ As a result of the compelling effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients, as well as increasing evidence that these clinical effects were independent of glycemic control, several subsequent trials were conducted to evaluate whether this new class of drugs may improve clinical outcomes in nondiabetic patients.

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) was the first clinical trial to investigate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease in nondiabetic patients. Findings from DAPA-HF showed that dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes, independent of the presence of underlying diabetes. This initial finding resonates with a growing body of evidence^6,7 that supports the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as an adjunctive therapy for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

The Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial showed that long-term administration of canagliflozin conferred cardiovascular, as well as renal, protection in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD.⁸ Similar to the protective effects on heart failure, the renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appeared to be independent of their blood glucose-lowering effects. Thus, these recent discoveries led to the design of the DAPA-CKD trial to further assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with CKD precipitated by causes other than type 2 diabetes. Although diabetes is the most common cause for CKD, it nonetheless only accounts for 40% of all CKD etiologies. To date, the only classes of medication that have been shown to slow a decline in kidney function in patients with diabetes are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Given that CKD is an important contributor to illness, is associated with diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy, and increases health care costs, the findings of the DAPA-CKD trial are particularly significant as they show a renal benefit of dapagliflozin treatment across CKD stages that is independent of underlying diabetes. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors may offer a new and unique treatment option for millions of patients with CKD worldwide for whom ACE inhibitors and ARBs were otherwise the only treatments to prevent kidney failure. Moreover, with a number-needed-to-treat of 19 to prevent 1 composite renal vascular event over a period of 2.4 years, dapagliflozin requires a much lower number needed to treat compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs in similar patients.

The trial has several limitations in study design. For example, the management of diabetes and hypertension were left to the discretion of each trial site, in keeping with local clinical practice and guidelines. It is unknown whether this variability in the management of comorbidities that impact kidney function had an effect on the study’s results. In addition, the trial was stopped early as a result of recommendations from an independent committee due to the demonstrated efficacy of dapagliflozin. This may have reduced the statistical power to assess some of the secondary outcomes. Finally, the authors discussed an initial dip in the estimated GFR after initiation of dapagliflozin treatment, similar to that observed in other SGLT2 inhibitor clinical trials. However, they were unable to ascertain the reversibility of this effect after the discontinuation of dapagliflozin because assessment of GFR was not completed after trial closure. Nonetheless, the authors specified that the reversibility of this initial estimated GFR dip had been assessed and observed in other clinical trials involving dapagliflozin.

The nonglycemic benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including improvement in renal outcomes, have strong implications for the future management of patients with CKD. If this indication is approved by the FDA and recommended by clinical guidelines, the ease of SGLT2 inhibitor prescription (eg, minimal drug-drug interaction, no titration), treatment administration (orally once daily), and safety profile may lead to wide use of SGLT2 inhibitors by generalists, nephrologists, and endocrinologists in preserving or improving renal outcomes in patients at risk for end-stage kidney disease. Given that SGLT2 inhibitors are a new class of pharmacologic therapeutics, patient education should include a discussion of the possible side effects, such as euglycemic ketoacidosis, genital and urinary tract infection, and foot and leg amputation. Finally, as Strandberg and colleagues reported in a recent commentary,⁹ the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with multimorbidity, frailty, and polypharmacy remains unclear. Thus, future studies of SGLT2 inhibitors are needed to better evaluate their clinical effects in older adults.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This trial enrolled a dedicated patient population with CKD and demonstrated a benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing renal and cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of baseline diabetes status. These drugs (dapagliflozin as well as other SGLT2 inhibitors) will likely have a prominent role in future CKD management guidelines. Until then, several barriers remain before SGLT2 inhibitors can be widely used in clinical practice. Among these barriers are FDA approval for their use in patients with and without diabetes with an estimated GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and lowering the costs of this class of drugs.

—Rachel Litke, MD, PhD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether dapagliflozin added to guideline-recommended therapies is effective and safe over the long-term to reduce the rate of renal and cardiovascular events in patients across multiple chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, with and without type 2 diabetes.

Design. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in CKD (DAPA-CKD) trial (NCT03036150) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter event-driven, clinical trial sponsored by Astra-Zeneca. It was conducted at 386 sites in 21 countries from February 2, 2017, to June 12, 2020. A recruitment period of 24 months and a total study duration of 45 months were initially planned. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population. This was the first randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD.

Setting and participants. This trial randomly assigned 4304 adult participants with CKD stages 2 to 4 (an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 25 to 75 mL/min/1.73 m² of body-surface area) and elevated urinary albumin excretion (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000, measured in mg of albumin per g of creatinine) to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, lupus nephritis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, recent immunosuppressive therapy for primary or secondary kidney disease, New York Heart Association class IV congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke or transient ischemic attacks, or recent coronary revascularization or valvular repair/replacement. All participants received a stable dose of renin–angiotensin system inhibitor for 4 weeks prior to screening, and the vast majority received a maximum tolerated dose at enrollment. Randomization was monitored to ensure that at least 30% of participants recruited did not have diabetes and that no more than 10% had stage 2 CKD. Participants were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (n = 2152) or matching placebo (n = 2152) to ensure a 1:1 ratio of the 2 regimens. Dapagliflozin and placebo had identical appearance and administration schedules. All participants and trial personnel (except members of the independent data monitoring committee) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. After randomization, in-person study visits were conducted at 2 weeks, at 2, 4, and 8 months, and at 4-month intervals thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of either a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes, in hierarchical order, were: (1) the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes; (2) a composite cardiovascular outcome defined as hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes; and (3) death from any cause. All outcomes were assessed by time-to-event analyses.

Given the extensive prior experience with dapagliflozin, only selected adverse events were recorded. These included serious adverse events, adverse events resulting in the discontinuation of dapagliflozin or placebo, and adverse events of interest to dapagliflozin (eg, volume depletion symptoms, renal events, major hypoglycemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, events leading to higher risk of lower limb amputation, and lower limb amputations).

Main results. On March 26, 2020, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial because of clear efficacy on the basis of 408 primary outcome events. The participants were 61.8 ± 12.1 years of age, and 1425 participants (33.1%) were female. The baseline mean estimated GFR was 43.1 ± 12.4 mL/min/1.73 m², the median urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 949, and 2906 participants (67.5%) had type 2 diabetes. Over a median of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 197 participants (9.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 312 (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.72; P < 0.001). The number of participants who needed to be treated during the trial period to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 19 (95% CI, 15-27). The beneficial effect of dapagliflozin compared with placebo was consistent across all 8 prespecified subgroups (ie, age, sex, race, geographic region, type 2 diabetes, estimated GFR, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and systolic blood pressure) for the primary outcome. The effects of dapagliflozin were similar in participants with type 2 diabetes and in those without type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of each secondary outcome was similarly lower in the dapagliflozin-treated group than in the placebo group. The HR for the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.45-0.68; P < 0.001), and the HR for the composite cardiovascular outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = 0.009). Death occurred in 101 participants (4.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 146 participants (6.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004). The known safety profile of dapagliflozin was confirmed by the similar overall incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Conclusion. In patients with CKD, with or without type 2 diabetes, the risk of a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes was significantly lowered by dapagliflozin treatment.

Commentary

Although SGLT2 inhibitors were designed to reduce plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by increasing urinary glucose excretion in a non-insulin-dependent fashion, an increasing number of clinical trials have demonstrated their possible cardiovascular and renal benefits that extend beyond glycemic control. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance recommending the evaluation of long-term cardiovascular outcomes prior to approval and commercialization of new antidiabetic therapies to ensure minimum cardiovascular risks following the discovery of cardiovascular safety issues associated with antidiabetic compounds, including rosiglitazone, after drug approval. No one foresaw that this recommendation would lead to the discovery of new classes of antidiabetic drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP1] and SGLT2 inhibitors) that improve cardiovascular outcomes. A series of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, including empagliflozin,¹ canagliflozin,² and dapagliflozin,³ showed a reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis from 2019 found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 23% and the risk of progression of kidney failure by 45% in patients with diabetes.⁴ Thus, the strong and consistent evidence from these large and well-designed outcome trials led the American Diabetes Association in its most recent guidelines to recommend adding SGLT2 inhibitors to metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or CKD, regardless of baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c target.⁵ As a result of the compelling effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients, as well as increasing evidence that these clinical effects were independent of glycemic control, several subsequent trials were conducted to evaluate whether this new class of drugs may improve clinical outcomes in nondiabetic patients.

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) was the first clinical trial to investigate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease in nondiabetic patients. Findings from DAPA-HF showed that dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes, independent of the presence of underlying diabetes. This initial finding resonates with a growing body of evidence^6,7 that supports the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as an adjunctive therapy for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

The Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial showed that long-term administration of canagliflozin conferred cardiovascular, as well as renal, protection in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD.⁸ Similar to the protective effects on heart failure, the renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appeared to be independent of their blood glucose-lowering effects. Thus, these recent discoveries led to the design of the DAPA-CKD trial to further assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with CKD precipitated by causes other than type 2 diabetes. Although diabetes is the most common cause for CKD, it nonetheless only accounts for 40% of all CKD etiologies. To date, the only classes of medication that have been shown to slow a decline in kidney function in patients with diabetes are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Given that CKD is an important contributor to illness, is associated with diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy, and increases health care costs, the findings of the DAPA-CKD trial are particularly significant as they show a renal benefit of dapagliflozin treatment across CKD stages that is independent of underlying diabetes. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors may offer a new and unique treatment option for millions of patients with CKD worldwide for whom ACE inhibitors and ARBs were otherwise the only treatments to prevent kidney failure. Moreover, with a number-needed-to-treat of 19 to prevent 1 composite renal vascular event over a period of 2.4 years, dapagliflozin requires a much lower number needed to treat compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs in similar patients.

The trial has several limitations in study design. For example, the management of diabetes and hypertension were left to the discretion of each trial site, in keeping with local clinical practice and guidelines. It is unknown whether this variability in the management of comorbidities that impact kidney function had an effect on the study’s results. In addition, the trial was stopped early as a result of recommendations from an independent committee due to the demonstrated efficacy of dapagliflozin. This may have reduced the statistical power to assess some of the secondary outcomes. Finally, the authors discussed an initial dip in the estimated GFR after initiation of dapagliflozin treatment, similar to that observed in other SGLT2 inhibitor clinical trials. However, they were unable to ascertain the reversibility of this effect after the discontinuation of dapagliflozin because assessment of GFR was not completed after trial closure. Nonetheless, the authors specified that the reversibility of this initial estimated GFR dip had been assessed and observed in other clinical trials involving dapagliflozin.

The nonglycemic benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including improvement in renal outcomes, have strong implications for the future management of patients with CKD. If this indication is approved by the FDA and recommended by clinical guidelines, the ease of SGLT2 inhibitor prescription (eg, minimal drug-drug interaction, no titration), treatment administration (orally once daily), and safety profile may lead to wide use of SGLT2 inhibitors by generalists, nephrologists, and endocrinologists in preserving or improving renal outcomes in patients at risk for end-stage kidney disease. Given that SGLT2 inhibitors are a new class of pharmacologic therapeutics, patient education should include a discussion of the possible side effects, such as euglycemic ketoacidosis, genital and urinary tract infection, and foot and leg amputation. Finally, as Strandberg and colleagues reported in a recent commentary,⁹ the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with multimorbidity, frailty, and polypharmacy remains unclear. Thus, future studies of SGLT2 inhibitors are needed to better evaluate their clinical effects in older adults.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This trial enrolled a dedicated patient population with CKD and demonstrated a benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing renal and cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of baseline diabetes status. These drugs (dapagliflozin as well as other SGLT2 inhibitors) will likely have a prominent role in future CKD management guidelines. Until then, several barriers remain before SGLT2 inhibitors can be widely used in clinical practice. Among these barriers are FDA approval for their use in patients with and without diabetes with an estimated GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and lowering the costs of this class of drugs.

—Rachel Litke, MD, PhD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether dapagliflozin added to guideline-recommended therapies is effective and safe over the long-term to reduce the rate of renal and cardiovascular events in patients across multiple chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages, with and without type 2 diabetes.

Design. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in CKD (DAPA-CKD) trial (NCT03036150) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter event-driven, clinical trial sponsored by Astra-Zeneca. It was conducted at 386 sites in 21 countries from February 2, 2017, to June 12, 2020. A recruitment period of 24 months and a total study duration of 45 months were initially planned. The primary efficacy analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population. This was the first randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD.

Setting and participants. This trial randomly assigned 4304 adult participants with CKD stages 2 to 4 (an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 25 to 75 mL/min/1.73 m² of body-surface area) and elevated urinary albumin excretion (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000, measured in mg of albumin per g of creatinine) to receive dapagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, polycystic kidney disease, lupus nephritis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, recent immunosuppressive therapy for primary or secondary kidney disease, New York Heart Association class IV congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke or transient ischemic attacks, or recent coronary revascularization or valvular repair/replacement. All participants received a stable dose of renin–angiotensin system inhibitor for 4 weeks prior to screening, and the vast majority received a maximum tolerated dose at enrollment. Randomization was monitored to ensure that at least 30% of participants recruited did not have diabetes and that no more than 10% had stage 2 CKD. Participants were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin (n = 2152) or matching placebo (n = 2152) to ensure a 1:1 ratio of the 2 regimens. Dapagliflozin and placebo had identical appearance and administration schedules. All participants and trial personnel (except members of the independent data monitoring committee) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. After randomization, in-person study visits were conducted at 2 weeks, at 2, 4, and 8 months, and at 4-month intervals thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of either a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes, in hierarchical order, were: (1) the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes; (2) a composite cardiovascular outcome defined as hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes; and (3) death from any cause. All outcomes were assessed by time-to-event analyses.

Given the extensive prior experience with dapagliflozin, only selected adverse events were recorded. These included serious adverse events, adverse events resulting in the discontinuation of dapagliflozin or placebo, and adverse events of interest to dapagliflozin (eg, volume depletion symptoms, renal events, major hypoglycemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, events leading to higher risk of lower limb amputation, and lower limb amputations).

Main results. On March 26, 2020, the independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial because of clear efficacy on the basis of 408 primary outcome events. The participants were 61.8 ± 12.1 years of age, and 1425 participants (33.1%) were female. The baseline mean estimated GFR was 43.1 ± 12.4 mL/min/1.73 m², the median urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 949, and 2906 participants (67.5%) had type 2 diabetes. Over a median of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 197 participants (9.2%) in the dapagliflozin group and 312 (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.72; P < 0.001). The number of participants who needed to be treated during the trial period to prevent 1 primary outcome event was 19 (95% CI, 15-27). The beneficial effect of dapagliflozin compared with placebo was consistent across all 8 prespecified subgroups (ie, age, sex, race, geographic region, type 2 diabetes, estimated GFR, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, and systolic blood pressure) for the primary outcome. The effects of dapagliflozin were similar in participants with type 2 diabetes and in those without type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of each secondary outcome was similarly lower in the dapagliflozin-treated group than in the placebo group. The HR for the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.45-0.68; P < 0.001), and the HR for the composite cardiovascular outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.55-0.92; P = 0.009). Death occurred in 101 participants (4.7%) in the dapagliflozin group and 146 participants (6.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = 0.004). The known safety profile of dapagliflozin was confirmed by the similar overall incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Conclusion. In patients with CKD, with or without type 2 diabetes, the risk of a composite of a sustained decline in the estimated GFR of at least 50%, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes was significantly lowered by dapagliflozin treatment.

Commentary

Although SGLT2 inhibitors were designed to reduce plasma glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by increasing urinary glucose excretion in a non-insulin-dependent fashion, an increasing number of clinical trials have demonstrated their possible cardiovascular and renal benefits that extend beyond glycemic control. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance recommending the evaluation of long-term cardiovascular outcomes prior to approval and commercialization of new antidiabetic therapies to ensure minimum cardiovascular risks following the discovery of cardiovascular safety issues associated with antidiabetic compounds, including rosiglitazone, after drug approval. No one foresaw that this recommendation would lead to the discovery of new classes of antidiabetic drugs (glucagon-like peptide 1 [GLP1] and SGLT2 inhibitors) that improve cardiovascular outcomes. A series of clinical trials of SGLT2 inhibitors, including empagliflozin,¹ canagliflozin,² and dapagliflozin,³ showed a reduction in cardiovascular death and hospitalization due to heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, a meta-analysis from 2019 found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure by 23% and the risk of progression of kidney failure by 45% in patients with diabetes.⁴ Thus, the strong and consistent evidence from these large and well-designed outcome trials led the American Diabetes Association in its most recent guidelines to recommend adding SGLT2 inhibitors to metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or CKD, regardless of baseline HbA1c levels or HbA1c target.⁵ As a result of the compelling effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients, as well as increasing evidence that these clinical effects were independent of glycemic control, several subsequent trials were conducted to evaluate whether this new class of drugs may improve clinical outcomes in nondiabetic patients.

The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) was the first clinical trial to investigate the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease in nondiabetic patients. Findings from DAPA-HF showed that dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes, independent of the presence of underlying diabetes. This initial finding resonates with a growing body of evidence^6,7 that supports the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as an adjunctive therapy for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

The Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial showed that long-term administration of canagliflozin conferred cardiovascular, as well as renal, protection in patients with type 2 diabetes with CKD.⁸ Similar to the protective effects on heart failure, the renal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors appeared to be independent of their blood glucose-lowering effects. Thus, these recent discoveries led to the design of the DAPA-CKD trial to further assess the long-term efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with CKD precipitated by causes other than type 2 diabetes. Although diabetes is the most common cause for CKD, it nonetheless only accounts for 40% of all CKD etiologies. To date, the only classes of medication that have been shown to slow a decline in kidney function in patients with diabetes are angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Given that CKD is an important contributor to illness, is associated with diminished quality of life and reduced life expectancy, and increases health care costs, the findings of the DAPA-CKD trial are particularly significant as they show a renal benefit of dapagliflozin treatment across CKD stages that is independent of underlying diabetes. Therefore, SGLT2 inhibitors may offer a new and unique treatment option for millions of patients with CKD worldwide for whom ACE inhibitors and ARBs were otherwise the only treatments to prevent kidney failure. Moreover, with a number-needed-to-treat of 19 to prevent 1 composite renal vascular event over a period of 2.4 years, dapagliflozin requires a much lower number needed to treat compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs in similar patients.

The trial has several limitations in study design. For example, the management of diabetes and hypertension were left to the discretion of each trial site, in keeping with local clinical practice and guidelines. It is unknown whether this variability in the management of comorbidities that impact kidney function had an effect on the study’s results. In addition, the trial was stopped early as a result of recommendations from an independent committee due to the demonstrated efficacy of dapagliflozin. This may have reduced the statistical power to assess some of the secondary outcomes. Finally, the authors discussed an initial dip in the estimated GFR after initiation of dapagliflozin treatment, similar to that observed in other SGLT2 inhibitor clinical trials. However, they were unable to ascertain the reversibility of this effect after the discontinuation of dapagliflozin because assessment of GFR was not completed after trial closure. Nonetheless, the authors specified that the reversibility of this initial estimated GFR dip had been assessed and observed in other clinical trials involving dapagliflozin.

The nonglycemic benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including improvement in renal outcomes, have strong implications for the future management of patients with CKD. If this indication is approved by the FDA and recommended by clinical guidelines, the ease of SGLT2 inhibitor prescription (eg, minimal drug-drug interaction, no titration), treatment administration (orally once daily), and safety profile may lead to wide use of SGLT2 inhibitors by generalists, nephrologists, and endocrinologists in preserving or improving renal outcomes in patients at risk for end-stage kidney disease. Given that SGLT2 inhibitors are a new class of pharmacologic therapeutics, patient education should include a discussion of the possible side effects, such as euglycemic ketoacidosis, genital and urinary tract infection, and foot and leg amputation. Finally, as Strandberg and colleagues reported in a recent commentary,⁹ the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults with multimorbidity, frailty, and polypharmacy remains unclear. Thus, future studies of SGLT2 inhibitors are needed to better evaluate their clinical effects in older adults.

Applications for Clinical Practice

This trial enrolled a dedicated patient population with CKD and demonstrated a benefit of dapagliflozin in reducing renal and cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of baseline diabetes status. These drugs (dapagliflozin as well as other SGLT2 inhibitors) will likely have a prominent role in future CKD management guidelines. Until then, several barriers remain before SGLT2 inhibitors can be widely used in clinical practice. Among these barriers are FDA approval for their use in patients with and without diabetes with an estimated GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² and lowering the costs of this class of drugs.

—Rachel Litke, MD, PhD
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Fred Ko, MD, MS

Medtronic’s launch of a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is the first such device for use by people with diabetes who use multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin.

Initially launched by Companion Medical in 2017, the InPen system is a reusable insulin injector pen combined with a smartphone app that provides insulin dose calculation information and tracking.

Medtronic acquired Companion in September 2020 and now the new version, the InPen with Real-Time Guardian Connect CGM Data, allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information in the same app.

The InPen, a so-called “connected delivery device,” also provides reports that aggregate insulin, glucose, and carbohydrate information into graphical displays. As with other current CGM systems, the information can be sent wirelessly to a clinician. And as with insulin pumps, the pens are programmed with target blood glucose levels, insulin-to-carb ratios, and insulin sensitivity parameters. The device tracks “insulin on board” and delivers reminders for basal and bolus doses.

InPen delivers only short-acting insulin from cartridges, all the three major brands. Patients who need long-acting insulin still need to inject that separately.

Barry H. Ginsberg, MD, PhD, of Diabetes Technology Consultants, Arlington, Va., said in an interview, “People using pumps have had data integration for a while now. This is an excellent first step in data integration for people doing MDI and I am sure it will improve blood glucose control.”

Asked about comparative costs, Medtronic spokeswoman Pamela Reese said in an interview, “While insurance costs will vary, the smart pen is less expensive than the insulin pump.”

Smart pens: How large is the market?

Speaking on Nov. 14 at the Diabetes Technology Society conference, diabetes care and education specialist Hope Warshaw, RD, gave an overview of the current smart pen/connected delivery device landscape.

She noted that the patient population who might benefit from smart pens, those using MDI, which is defined as injecting both long-acting insulin and short-acting insulin before meals, may be larger than appreciated. There are about 1.6 million U.S. patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom just 30%-40% currently use insulin pumps. In addition, of the 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes who take insulin, about 29%, or 1.7 million, use MDI.

Among those with type 1 diabetes, she said that smart pens might be a good option for “people who don’t want to wear the physical pump. They can deal with the sensor, but for psychological reasons or they have dermatologic issues, they just can’t wear a pump.”

But, Ms. Warshaw stressed, the type 2 diabetes population shouldn’t be overlooked. “More and more people with type 2 diabetes are on MDI. ... In fact, there are more who use MDI than the entire population with type 1 diabetes. ... This is happening because people with type 2 are getting it earlier and living longer.”

Dr. Ginsberg views smart pens as a bridge between simple pen injectors to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, those that link insulin pumps with CGMs.

Regarding patients with type 1 diabetes, he said, “I see pen users on MDI slowly moving to integrated systems and then, when comfortable with the technology, moving to AID, finances allowing.”

As for those with type 2 diabetes, he said that they “are less computer literate and less likely to move to integrated systems, but they will, over time.”

In all, Dr. Ginsberg said, “I see integrated pens as increasing, not decreasing, the AID market.”
 

Emerging field: “I think they’re here to stay”

The new Medtronic InPen system can still display information from other compatible CGM systems, but on a 3-hour delay. This is important since the Guardian is not currently approved for determining insulin doses. In order to do that, users must still either use readings from another CGM system on a separate app or perform fingerstick blood glucose measurements.

The InPen is the first CGM-integrated pen device but is not likely to be the last. Similar technologies are being pursued by all three of the major insulin manufacturers and some other companies.

Eli Lilly’s Humalog Tempo Pen, a modified version of KwikPen, is integrated with the Dexcom CGM. The pen itself has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but some of the component parts await authorization.

Novo Nordisk is expected to file with the FDA in 2021 for its NovoPen Echo Plus.

For its part, in December 2019, Sanofi teamed up with Bioport to fit its SoloStar insulin pens with their technology called Mallya, which had received CE Mark in June 2019. That device, which clips onto the top and the button of most major pens, adds smart pen capacity via Bluetooth. BioCorp also has teamed up with other manufacturers including Roche and AgaMatrix.

Another major player, Bigfoot Biomedical, has filed with the FDA for its connected pen that works with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM.

Ms. Warshaw advised, “We need to start talking more about the ways that peoples’ wants, needs, and desires change and evolve over the person’s life as their diabetes evolves and as all this technology evolves.

“Time will tell how many people will be on the very expensive [AID] systems. ... Pens are cheaper. The main cost is insulin. I think they’re here to stay. The big insulin makers wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.”

Dr. Ginsberg has no disclosures. Ms. Warshaw is a consultant and writer for Companion Medical/Medtronic and a faculty member of LifeScan Diabetes Institute.
 

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

Medtronic’s launch of a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is the first such device for use by people with diabetes who use multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin.

Initially launched by Companion Medical in 2017, the InPen system is a reusable insulin injector pen combined with a smartphone app that provides insulin dose calculation information and tracking.

Medtronic acquired Companion in September 2020 and now the new version, the InPen with Real-Time Guardian Connect CGM Data, allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information in the same app.

The InPen, a so-called “connected delivery device,” also provides reports that aggregate insulin, glucose, and carbohydrate information into graphical displays. As with other current CGM systems, the information can be sent wirelessly to a clinician. And as with insulin pumps, the pens are programmed with target blood glucose levels, insulin-to-carb ratios, and insulin sensitivity parameters. The device tracks “insulin on board” and delivers reminders for basal and bolus doses.

InPen delivers only short-acting insulin from cartridges, all the three major brands. Patients who need long-acting insulin still need to inject that separately.

Barry H. Ginsberg, MD, PhD, of Diabetes Technology Consultants, Arlington, Va., said in an interview, “People using pumps have had data integration for a while now. This is an excellent first step in data integration for people doing MDI and I am sure it will improve blood glucose control.”

Asked about comparative costs, Medtronic spokeswoman Pamela Reese said in an interview, “While insurance costs will vary, the smart pen is less expensive than the insulin pump.”

Smart pens: How large is the market?

Speaking on Nov. 14 at the Diabetes Technology Society conference, diabetes care and education specialist Hope Warshaw, RD, gave an overview of the current smart pen/connected delivery device landscape.

She noted that the patient population who might benefit from smart pens, those using MDI, which is defined as injecting both long-acting insulin and short-acting insulin before meals, may be larger than appreciated. There are about 1.6 million U.S. patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom just 30%-40% currently use insulin pumps. In addition, of the 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes who take insulin, about 29%, or 1.7 million, use MDI.

Among those with type 1 diabetes, she said that smart pens might be a good option for “people who don’t want to wear the physical pump. They can deal with the sensor, but for psychological reasons or they have dermatologic issues, they just can’t wear a pump.”

But, Ms. Warshaw stressed, the type 2 diabetes population shouldn’t be overlooked. “More and more people with type 2 diabetes are on MDI. ... In fact, there are more who use MDI than the entire population with type 1 diabetes. ... This is happening because people with type 2 are getting it earlier and living longer.”

Dr. Ginsberg views smart pens as a bridge between simple pen injectors to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, those that link insulin pumps with CGMs.

Regarding patients with type 1 diabetes, he said, “I see pen users on MDI slowly moving to integrated systems and then, when comfortable with the technology, moving to AID, finances allowing.”

As for those with type 2 diabetes, he said that they “are less computer literate and less likely to move to integrated systems, but they will, over time.”

In all, Dr. Ginsberg said, “I see integrated pens as increasing, not decreasing, the AID market.”
 

Emerging field: “I think they’re here to stay”

The new Medtronic InPen system can still display information from other compatible CGM systems, but on a 3-hour delay. This is important since the Guardian is not currently approved for determining insulin doses. In order to do that, users must still either use readings from another CGM system on a separate app or perform fingerstick blood glucose measurements.

The InPen is the first CGM-integrated pen device but is not likely to be the last. Similar technologies are being pursued by all three of the major insulin manufacturers and some other companies.

Eli Lilly’s Humalog Tempo Pen, a modified version of KwikPen, is integrated with the Dexcom CGM. The pen itself has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but some of the component parts await authorization.

Novo Nordisk is expected to file with the FDA in 2021 for its NovoPen Echo Plus.

For its part, in December 2019, Sanofi teamed up with Bioport to fit its SoloStar insulin pens with their technology called Mallya, which had received CE Mark in June 2019. That device, which clips onto the top and the button of most major pens, adds smart pen capacity via Bluetooth. BioCorp also has teamed up with other manufacturers including Roche and AgaMatrix.

Another major player, Bigfoot Biomedical, has filed with the FDA for its connected pen that works with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM.

Ms. Warshaw advised, “We need to start talking more about the ways that peoples’ wants, needs, and desires change and evolve over the person’s life as their diabetes evolves and as all this technology evolves.

“Time will tell how many people will be on the very expensive [AID] systems. ... Pens are cheaper. The main cost is insulin. I think they’re here to stay. The big insulin makers wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.”

Dr. Ginsberg has no disclosures. Ms. Warshaw is a consultant and writer for Companion Medical/Medtronic and a faculty member of LifeScan Diabetes Institute.
 

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

Medtronic’s launch of a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is the first such device for use by people with diabetes who use multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin.

Initially launched by Companion Medical in 2017, the InPen system is a reusable insulin injector pen combined with a smartphone app that provides insulin dose calculation information and tracking.

Medtronic acquired Companion in September 2020 and now the new version, the InPen with Real-Time Guardian Connect CGM Data, allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information in the same app.

The InPen, a so-called “connected delivery device,” also provides reports that aggregate insulin, glucose, and carbohydrate information into graphical displays. As with other current CGM systems, the information can be sent wirelessly to a clinician. And as with insulin pumps, the pens are programmed with target blood glucose levels, insulin-to-carb ratios, and insulin sensitivity parameters. The device tracks “insulin on board” and delivers reminders for basal and bolus doses.

InPen delivers only short-acting insulin from cartridges, all the three major brands. Patients who need long-acting insulin still need to inject that separately.

Barry H. Ginsberg, MD, PhD, of Diabetes Technology Consultants, Arlington, Va., said in an interview, “People using pumps have had data integration for a while now. This is an excellent first step in data integration for people doing MDI and I am sure it will improve blood glucose control.”

Asked about comparative costs, Medtronic spokeswoman Pamela Reese said in an interview, “While insurance costs will vary, the smart pen is less expensive than the insulin pump.”

Smart pens: How large is the market?

Speaking on Nov. 14 at the Diabetes Technology Society conference, diabetes care and education specialist Hope Warshaw, RD, gave an overview of the current smart pen/connected delivery device landscape.

She noted that the patient population who might benefit from smart pens, those using MDI, which is defined as injecting both long-acting insulin and short-acting insulin before meals, may be larger than appreciated. There are about 1.6 million U.S. patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom just 30%-40% currently use insulin pumps. In addition, of the 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes who take insulin, about 29%, or 1.7 million, use MDI.

Among those with type 1 diabetes, she said that smart pens might be a good option for “people who don’t want to wear the physical pump. They can deal with the sensor, but for psychological reasons or they have dermatologic issues, they just can’t wear a pump.”

But, Ms. Warshaw stressed, the type 2 diabetes population shouldn’t be overlooked. “More and more people with type 2 diabetes are on MDI. ... In fact, there are more who use MDI than the entire population with type 1 diabetes. ... This is happening because people with type 2 are getting it earlier and living longer.”

Dr. Ginsberg views smart pens as a bridge between simple pen injectors to automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, those that link insulin pumps with CGMs.

Regarding patients with type 1 diabetes, he said, “I see pen users on MDI slowly moving to integrated systems and then, when comfortable with the technology, moving to AID, finances allowing.”

As for those with type 2 diabetes, he said that they “are less computer literate and less likely to move to integrated systems, but they will, over time.”

In all, Dr. Ginsberg said, “I see integrated pens as increasing, not decreasing, the AID market.”
 

Emerging field: “I think they’re here to stay”

The new Medtronic InPen system can still display information from other compatible CGM systems, but on a 3-hour delay. This is important since the Guardian is not currently approved for determining insulin doses. In order to do that, users must still either use readings from another CGM system on a separate app or perform fingerstick blood glucose measurements.

The InPen is the first CGM-integrated pen device but is not likely to be the last. Similar technologies are being pursued by all three of the major insulin manufacturers and some other companies.

Eli Lilly’s Humalog Tempo Pen, a modified version of KwikPen, is integrated with the Dexcom CGM. The pen itself has been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but some of the component parts await authorization.

Novo Nordisk is expected to file with the FDA in 2021 for its NovoPen Echo Plus.

For its part, in December 2019, Sanofi teamed up with Bioport to fit its SoloStar insulin pens with their technology called Mallya, which had received CE Mark in June 2019. That device, which clips onto the top and the button of most major pens, adds smart pen capacity via Bluetooth. BioCorp also has teamed up with other manufacturers including Roche and AgaMatrix.

Another major player, Bigfoot Biomedical, has filed with the FDA for its connected pen that works with the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 2 CGM.

Ms. Warshaw advised, “We need to start talking more about the ways that peoples’ wants, needs, and desires change and evolve over the person’s life as their diabetes evolves and as all this technology evolves.

“Time will tell how many people will be on the very expensive [AID] systems. ... Pens are cheaper. The main cost is insulin. I think they’re here to stay. The big insulin makers wouldn’t be doing it otherwise.”

Dr. Ginsberg has no disclosures. Ms. Warshaw is a consultant and writer for Companion Medical/Medtronic and a faculty member of LifeScan Diabetes Institute.
 

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

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

Sotagliflozin, a novel type of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitor, showed the diverse benefits this drug class provides along some new twists in a pair of international pivotal trials that together enrolled nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes.

Unprecedented benefits were seen for the first time with a drug, sotagliflozin (Zynquista) that produces both sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition as well as SGLT1 inhibition.

They included a big reduction in both MIs and strokes; an ability to meaningfully reduce hyperglycemia in patients with severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²; an ability to safely and effectively start in patients still hospitalized (but stable) for an acute heart failure episode; and a striking 37% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalizations, or an urgent outpatient visit for heart failure in 739 of the patients enrolled in both trials who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

These studies produced for the first time evidence from controlled, prospective, randomized trials that a drug could improve the outcome of HFpEF patients.

All these novel outcomes came on top of the usual benefits clinicians have generally seen across the SGLT2 inhibitors already on the U.S. market: reductions in cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations among all patients with type 2 diabetes, preservation of renal function, and hemoglobin A1c lowering among T2D patients with eGFR levels of at least 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².

“The data look spectacular,” summed up Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, who presented the results from the two trials, SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED, in talks at the virtual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“I think sotagliflozin has the potential to be the best in class” based on the several added attributes shown in the two trials, he said in an interview. “We’ve shown that it is very safe, well tolerated, and effective.”

The primary results were a significant 33% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin treatment, compared with placebo in the rate of total cardiovascular deaths, hospitalizations for heart failure, or urgent outpatient visits for heart failure during just over 9 months of median follow-up among patients with T2D recently hospitalized for heart failure in SOLOIST-WFH. And a significant 26% relative risk reduction with sotagliflozin for the same endpoint after a median follow-up of just over 14 months in SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease.

“Sotagliflozin adds to the SGLT2 inhibitor story,” and the SOLOIST-WHF results “may shift our focus to vulnerable, acute heart failure patients with an opportunity to treat during the transition phase,” when these patients leave the hospital, commented Jane E. Wilcox, MD, the study’s designated discussant and a heart failure cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago.
 

A dual SGLT inhibitor

What sets sotagliflozin apart from the SGLT2 inhibitors is that it not only inhibits that protein but also SGTL1, which primarily resides in the gastrointestinal tract and is the main route for gut absorption of glucose. Dr. Bhatt said that he was unaware of any other SGLT1/2 inhibitors currently in advanced clinical testing.

The activity of sotagliflozin against the SGLT1 protein likely explains its ability to cut A1c levels in patients with severe renal dysfunction, a condition that stymies glucose lowering by SGLT2 inhibitors. In SCORED, which randomized 10,584 patients with T2D at 750 study sites in 44 countries, 813 patients (8%) had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² at enrollment. Sotagliflozin treatment led to an average 0.6% cut in A1c in this subgroup, and by the same average amount among the patients with GFRs of 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.

“This is a huge finding for endocrinologists and primary care physicians” who treat patients with T2D who have severe renal dysfunction, said Dr. Bhatt, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “It’s a good enough reason by itself to approve this drug.”

The same mechanism may also be behind another unexpected finding in SCORED. Treatment with sotagliflozin cut the rate of total episodes of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke by an absolute 1.6%, compared with placebo, and by a relative 23%. This benefit was largely driven by a 32% relative risk reduction total in MIs, and a 34% relative risk reduction in total stroke, both significant differences.

“No SGLT2 inhibitor has shown a reduction in stroke, and the MI signals have been mixed. The sizable MI and stroke effects are unique to sotagliflozin,” compared with the SGLT2 inhibitors, and likely reflect one or more mechanisms that result from blocked gut SGLT1 and a cut in GI glucose uptake, said Dr. Bhatt. “Probably some novel mechanism we don’t fully understand.”
 

First-ever HFpEF benefit

In contrast to these two benefits that are probably unique to drugs that inhibit the SGLT1 protein, sotagliflozin showed two other notable and unprecedented benefits that are likely generalizable to the SGLT2 inhibitors.

First is the striking benefit for HFpEF. Neither SOLOIST, which enrolled 1,222 patients with T2D and just hospitalized for worsening heart failure, nor SCORED, which enrolled patients with T2D and chronic kidney disease based exclusively on an eGFR of 25-60 mL/min per 1.73 m², excluded patients with HFpEF, defined as heart failure patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%. The two studies together included a total of 739 of these patients, and they split fairly evenly between treatment with sotagliflozin or placebo.

The combined analysis showed that the incidence rate for the primary endpoint in both SOLOIST and SCORED was 59% with placebo and 39% with sotagliflozin, an absolute event reduction of 11.6 events/100 patient-years, and a significant 37% relative risk reduction, with a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event per year event of 9.

Although this observation comes from a nonprespecified combined analysis, “to me this result seems real, and I think it’s a class effect that I’m willing to extrapolate to the SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Bhatt said. “It will change my practice,” he added, by spurring him to more aggressively prescribe an SGLT2 inhibitor to a patient with T2D and HFpEF.

“I think there has been some hesitation to use SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D patients with HFpEF” because of the paucity of data in this population, even though labeling and society recommendations do not rule it out. “I hope this finding will move that needle, and also generally improve SGLT2 inhibitor uptake, which has been low,” he said.
 

Also safe soon after acute heart failure decompensation

The other finding likely generalizable to SGLT2 inhibitors stems from the design of SOLOIST-WHF, which tested the efficacy and safety of starting sotagliflozin in patients with T2D as soon as they were stable after hospitalization for acute heart failure decompensation.

“Showing safety and efficacy when started in the hospital is pretty meaningful, because its tells patients that this drug is important and they should stay on it,” which should improve adherence, predicted Dr. Bhatt, who is also executive director of Interventional Cardiovascular Programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “That’s the ultimate treatment path to prevent patients from falling through the cracks” and failing to receive an SGLT2 inhibitor.

SOLOIST-WHF enrolled patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure who also required intravenous diuretic treatment but had become stable enough to transition to an oral diuretic and come off oxygen. During a median follow-up of just over 9 months (both SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED ended sooner than planned because of a change in drug company sponsorship), treatment with sotagliflozin cut the primary endpoint by a relative 33%, compared with placebo, and with an absolute reduction of 25 events per 100 patient-years for a number needed to treat of 4. Sotagliflozin produced a strikingly high level of treatment efficiency driven by the high event rate in these recently decompensated patients. The benefit also appeared quickly, with a significant cut in events discernible within 28 days.

Extrapolating this finding to the SGLT2 inhibitors is “not a huge leap of faith,” Dr. Bhatt said.

“There is a role for sotagliflozin in acute heart failure. It showed benefit in these high-risk, transition-phase patients,” said Dr. Wilcox.

Simultaneously with Dr. Bhatt’s presentation, results of SOLOIST-WHF and SCORED were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trials were sponsored initially by Sanofi, and more recently by Lexicon. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from both companies, and also from several other companies. He also is an adviser to several companies. Dr. Wilcox has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Medtronic.

[email protected]

A panel convened by The Lancet has published a comprehensive report calling for major initiatives to improve diabetes prevention and care around the world.

The article was published online Nov. 12, just ahead of World Diabetes Day.

Of the 463 million people with diabetes worldwide in 2019, 80% live in low- and middle-income countries. The condition reduces life expectancy in middle-aged adults by 4-10 years, including increasing the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and cancer by up to threefold. It is also a leading cause of nontraumatic amputation and blindness.

Use of evidence-based interventions, if implemented and managed properly, could prevent thousands of deaths globally every day, stressed the commission.

“There is an enormous amount of knowledge that we have amassed over the years. We need good preventive care and we need to ensure that diabetes patients, once diagnosed, have good continuous care. There is an urgent need for decision-makers, policymakers, and payers to make things happen,” the leader of the multidisciplinary commission, Juliana C.N. Chan, MBChB, MD, said in an interview.

And now diabetes has emerged as a major risk factor for death from COVID-19, particularly in the setting of inadequate glycemic control.

“COVID-19 has exposed the vulnerability of individuals with diabetes,” said Dr. Chan, of the Hong Kong Institute of Diabetes and Obesity. “We should use the pandemic as an opportunity to implement solutions.”
 

Physician education key, trickling down to field workers and patients

First on the agenda, she says, should be “physician education. There are many primary care providers and internal medicine physicians whose knowledge needs to be updated.”

“Then doctors need to transfer this information to other people, such as nurses and community field workers. We cannot just rely on doctors; we need to train nonmedics” so that knowledge about how to prevent, treat, and manage diabetes long term is communicated right down the health care chain, she explained.

“They need to know how to look at people’s eyes and feet, how to do blood and urine tests, and how to collect data. Then they need to educate patients on what they should be doing, on how to practice self-care,” she added.

“We need to change our way of thinking, redesign clinic flow and how you build a team. And those care teams need to know how to collect data, and then use that data to monitor patients and to stratify individual risk, to ensure that what has been said has been done, as well as to inform practice and policies” through, for example, the establishment of diabetes registers.

The focus needs to be on “lifelong integrated care, the right treatment at the right time,” she emphasized. History-taking, clinical and laboratory assessments, as well as monitoring of macrovascular and microvascular complications, comorbidities, and medications, are all key.

Just a few simple things, if properly implemented, could make a big difference, Dr. Chan stressed.

For example, implementing a structured lifestyle intervention and use of metformin can each prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance by 30%-50%, and sustained weight reduction in patients with obesity by 15 kg (33 lb) or more can induce remission of type 2 diabetes for up to 2 years.

And there are plenty of medications that are “very affordable even in low- and middle-income countries” to treat diabetes and associated risk factors, including metformin, “statins, and RAS inhibitors,” she noted.

For instance, the 10 low- and middle-income countries with the greatest burden of diabetes (China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Thailand) account for 217 million cases of type 2 diabetes, representing nearly 50% of all diabetes cases.

The commission estimated that 3.2 million of these individuals would die in 3 years if not treated, with 1.3 million of these deaths due to cardiovascular disease.

By reducing hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and LDL-cholesterol through achieving a diagnosis rate of 50%, ensuring access to essential medicines in at least 70% of patients, and with a support system to sustain reductions in these risk factors over 3 years, up to 800,000 premature deaths could be avoided.
 

People with type 1 diabetes dying; WHO launches initiative

In an accompanying commentary (2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32378-3), Katie Dain, chief executive officer of the Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) Alliance, points out that only half of people living with diabetes around the world – and just one in seven in Africa – have reliable access to insulin.

“Lots of people with type 1 diabetes are still dying due to lack of insulin,” Dr. Chan said in an interview. “We need to elevate basic care to intermediate and ensure that basal-bolus insulin and glucose-monitoring tools are available and that patients are trained in self-care. In that way, 80% of type 1 diabetes deaths could be prevented.”

Ms. 3Dain agrees, stressing, “Political rhetoric and commitments have yet to translate into sufficient and sustainable action for people living with diabetes worldwide, and particularly for those in [low- and middle-income countries].”

The Lancet Commission document also emphasizes the importance of support for pregnant women with diabetes and attention to the psychosocial needs of people with diabetes.

And it stresses society-, population-, and community-based strategies for type 2 diabetes prevention including health awareness programs, food policies, and broad use of nonphysician personnel to deliver diabetes prevention efforts.

In tandem with World Diabetes Day, the World Health Organization will announce the development of the WHO Global Diabetes Compact, which will be launched in April 2021.

This will aim to implement the commission’s recommendations through partnerships with governments, care providers, patient advocates, and nongovernmental organizations.

Together, they will “support countries to mobilize resources and accelerate structural transformations, which will enable the scale-up of access to essential diabetes medicines and technologies, inclusion of diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in primary health care and universal health coverage packages, and reduction of major population-level diabetes risk factors such as obesity,” according to another Lancet editorial accompanying the report.

“The evidence-base for improving diabetes prevention and care is strong. The question now for diabetes advocates is how to achieve the comprehensive, systems-level change needed to translate this evidence into action.”

Dr. Chan has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Lee Powder, Hua Medicine, and Qualigenics, as well as grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck, and MSD outside the submitted work. She has reported being the chief executive officer (pro bono) of the Asia Diabetes Foundation and a cofounder of GemVCare. She also holds a patent for genetic markers for diabetes and its complications. Ms. Dain has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A panel convened by The Lancet has published a comprehensive report calling for major initiatives to improve diabetes prevention and care around the world.

The article was published online Nov. 12, just ahead of World Diabetes Day.

Of the 463 million people with diabetes worldwide in 2019, 80% live in low- and middle-income countries. The condition reduces life expectancy in middle-aged adults by 4-10 years, including increasing the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and cancer by up to threefold. It is also a leading cause of nontraumatic amputation and blindness.

Use of evidence-based interventions, if implemented and managed properly, could prevent thousands of deaths globally every day, stressed the commission.

“There is an enormous amount of knowledge that we have amassed over the years. We need good preventive care and we need to ensure that diabetes patients, once diagnosed, have good continuous care. There is an urgent need for decision-makers, policymakers, and payers to make things happen,” the leader of the multidisciplinary commission, Juliana C.N. Chan, MBChB, MD, said in an interview.

And now diabetes has emerged as a major risk factor for death from COVID-19, particularly in the setting of inadequate glycemic control.

“COVID-19 has exposed the vulnerability of individuals with diabetes,” said Dr. Chan, of the Hong Kong Institute of Diabetes and Obesity. “We should use the pandemic as an opportunity to implement solutions.”
 

Physician education key, trickling down to field workers and patients

First on the agenda, she says, should be “physician education. There are many primary care providers and internal medicine physicians whose knowledge needs to be updated.”

“Then doctors need to transfer this information to other people, such as nurses and community field workers. We cannot just rely on doctors; we need to train nonmedics” so that knowledge about how to prevent, treat, and manage diabetes long term is communicated right down the health care chain, she explained.

“They need to know how to look at people’s eyes and feet, how to do blood and urine tests, and how to collect data. Then they need to educate patients on what they should be doing, on how to practice self-care,” she added.

“We need to change our way of thinking, redesign clinic flow and how you build a team. And those care teams need to know how to collect data, and then use that data to monitor patients and to stratify individual risk, to ensure that what has been said has been done, as well as to inform practice and policies” through, for example, the establishment of diabetes registers.

The focus needs to be on “lifelong integrated care, the right treatment at the right time,” she emphasized. History-taking, clinical and laboratory assessments, as well as monitoring of macrovascular and microvascular complications, comorbidities, and medications, are all key.

Just a few simple things, if properly implemented, could make a big difference, Dr. Chan stressed.

For example, implementing a structured lifestyle intervention and use of metformin can each prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance by 30%-50%, and sustained weight reduction in patients with obesity by 15 kg (33 lb) or more can induce remission of type 2 diabetes for up to 2 years.

And there are plenty of medications that are “very affordable even in low- and middle-income countries” to treat diabetes and associated risk factors, including metformin, “statins, and RAS inhibitors,” she noted.

For instance, the 10 low- and middle-income countries with the greatest burden of diabetes (China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Thailand) account for 217 million cases of type 2 diabetes, representing nearly 50% of all diabetes cases.

The commission estimated that 3.2 million of these individuals would die in 3 years if not treated, with 1.3 million of these deaths due to cardiovascular disease.

By reducing hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and LDL-cholesterol through achieving a diagnosis rate of 50%, ensuring access to essential medicines in at least 70% of patients, and with a support system to sustain reductions in these risk factors over 3 years, up to 800,000 premature deaths could be avoided.
 

People with type 1 diabetes dying; WHO launches initiative

In an accompanying commentary (2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32378-3), Katie Dain, chief executive officer of the Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) Alliance, points out that only half of people living with diabetes around the world – and just one in seven in Africa – have reliable access to insulin.

“Lots of people with type 1 diabetes are still dying due to lack of insulin,” Dr. Chan said in an interview. “We need to elevate basic care to intermediate and ensure that basal-bolus insulin and glucose-monitoring tools are available and that patients are trained in self-care. In that way, 80% of type 1 diabetes deaths could be prevented.”

Ms. 3Dain agrees, stressing, “Political rhetoric and commitments have yet to translate into sufficient and sustainable action for people living with diabetes worldwide, and particularly for those in [low- and middle-income countries].”

The Lancet Commission document also emphasizes the importance of support for pregnant women with diabetes and attention to the psychosocial needs of people with diabetes.

And it stresses society-, population-, and community-based strategies for type 2 diabetes prevention including health awareness programs, food policies, and broad use of nonphysician personnel to deliver diabetes prevention efforts.

In tandem with World Diabetes Day, the World Health Organization will announce the development of the WHO Global Diabetes Compact, which will be launched in April 2021.

This will aim to implement the commission’s recommendations through partnerships with governments, care providers, patient advocates, and nongovernmental organizations.

Together, they will “support countries to mobilize resources and accelerate structural transformations, which will enable the scale-up of access to essential diabetes medicines and technologies, inclusion of diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in primary health care and universal health coverage packages, and reduction of major population-level diabetes risk factors such as obesity,” according to another Lancet editorial accompanying the report.

“The evidence-base for improving diabetes prevention and care is strong. The question now for diabetes advocates is how to achieve the comprehensive, systems-level change needed to translate this evidence into action.”

Dr. Chan has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Lee Powder, Hua Medicine, and Qualigenics, as well as grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck, and MSD outside the submitted work. She has reported being the chief executive officer (pro bono) of the Asia Diabetes Foundation and a cofounder of GemVCare. She also holds a patent for genetic markers for diabetes and its complications. Ms. Dain has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A panel convened by The Lancet has published a comprehensive report calling for major initiatives to improve diabetes prevention and care around the world.

The article was published online Nov. 12, just ahead of World Diabetes Day.

Of the 463 million people with diabetes worldwide in 2019, 80% live in low- and middle-income countries. The condition reduces life expectancy in middle-aged adults by 4-10 years, including increasing the risk of death from cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and cancer by up to threefold. It is also a leading cause of nontraumatic amputation and blindness.

Use of evidence-based interventions, if implemented and managed properly, could prevent thousands of deaths globally every day, stressed the commission.

“There is an enormous amount of knowledge that we have amassed over the years. We need good preventive care and we need to ensure that diabetes patients, once diagnosed, have good continuous care. There is an urgent need for decision-makers, policymakers, and payers to make things happen,” the leader of the multidisciplinary commission, Juliana C.N. Chan, MBChB, MD, said in an interview.

And now diabetes has emerged as a major risk factor for death from COVID-19, particularly in the setting of inadequate glycemic control.

“COVID-19 has exposed the vulnerability of individuals with diabetes,” said Dr. Chan, of the Hong Kong Institute of Diabetes and Obesity. “We should use the pandemic as an opportunity to implement solutions.”
 

Physician education key, trickling down to field workers and patients

First on the agenda, she says, should be “physician education. There are many primary care providers and internal medicine physicians whose knowledge needs to be updated.”

“Then doctors need to transfer this information to other people, such as nurses and community field workers. We cannot just rely on doctors; we need to train nonmedics” so that knowledge about how to prevent, treat, and manage diabetes long term is communicated right down the health care chain, she explained.

“They need to know how to look at people’s eyes and feet, how to do blood and urine tests, and how to collect data. Then they need to educate patients on what they should be doing, on how to practice self-care,” she added.

“We need to change our way of thinking, redesign clinic flow and how you build a team. And those care teams need to know how to collect data, and then use that data to monitor patients and to stratify individual risk, to ensure that what has been said has been done, as well as to inform practice and policies” through, for example, the establishment of diabetes registers.

The focus needs to be on “lifelong integrated care, the right treatment at the right time,” she emphasized. History-taking, clinical and laboratory assessments, as well as monitoring of macrovascular and microvascular complications, comorbidities, and medications, are all key.

Just a few simple things, if properly implemented, could make a big difference, Dr. Chan stressed.

For example, implementing a structured lifestyle intervention and use of metformin can each prevent or delay type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance by 30%-50%, and sustained weight reduction in patients with obesity by 15 kg (33 lb) or more can induce remission of type 2 diabetes for up to 2 years.

And there are plenty of medications that are “very affordable even in low- and middle-income countries” to treat diabetes and associated risk factors, including metformin, “statins, and RAS inhibitors,” she noted.

For instance, the 10 low- and middle-income countries with the greatest burden of diabetes (China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Thailand) account for 217 million cases of type 2 diabetes, representing nearly 50% of all diabetes cases.

The commission estimated that 3.2 million of these individuals would die in 3 years if not treated, with 1.3 million of these deaths due to cardiovascular disease.

By reducing hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and LDL-cholesterol through achieving a diagnosis rate of 50%, ensuring access to essential medicines in at least 70% of patients, and with a support system to sustain reductions in these risk factors over 3 years, up to 800,000 premature deaths could be avoided.
 

People with type 1 diabetes dying; WHO launches initiative

In an accompanying commentary (2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32378-3), Katie Dain, chief executive officer of the Noncommunicable Diseases (NCD) Alliance, points out that only half of people living with diabetes around the world – and just one in seven in Africa – have reliable access to insulin.

“Lots of people with type 1 diabetes are still dying due to lack of insulin,” Dr. Chan said in an interview. “We need to elevate basic care to intermediate and ensure that basal-bolus insulin and glucose-monitoring tools are available and that patients are trained in self-care. In that way, 80% of type 1 diabetes deaths could be prevented.”

Ms. 3Dain agrees, stressing, “Political rhetoric and commitments have yet to translate into sufficient and sustainable action for people living with diabetes worldwide, and particularly for those in [low- and middle-income countries].”

The Lancet Commission document also emphasizes the importance of support for pregnant women with diabetes and attention to the psychosocial needs of people with diabetes.

And it stresses society-, population-, and community-based strategies for type 2 diabetes prevention including health awareness programs, food policies, and broad use of nonphysician personnel to deliver diabetes prevention efforts.

In tandem with World Diabetes Day, the World Health Organization will announce the development of the WHO Global Diabetes Compact, which will be launched in April 2021.

This will aim to implement the commission’s recommendations through partnerships with governments, care providers, patient advocates, and nongovernmental organizations.

Together, they will “support countries to mobilize resources and accelerate structural transformations, which will enable the scale-up of access to essential diabetes medicines and technologies, inclusion of diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in primary health care and universal health coverage packages, and reduction of major population-level diabetes risk factors such as obesity,” according to another Lancet editorial accompanying the report.

“The evidence-base for improving diabetes prevention and care is strong. The question now for diabetes advocates is how to achieve the comprehensive, systems-level change needed to translate this evidence into action.”

Dr. Chan has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Lee Powder, Hua Medicine, and Qualigenics, as well as grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Novartis, Merck, and MSD outside the submitted work. She has reported being the chief executive officer (pro bono) of the Asia Diabetes Foundation and a cofounder of GemVCare. She also holds a patent for genetic markers for diabetes and its complications. Ms. Dain has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.

nktwentythree/Getty Images

The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.

Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.

To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.

Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.

However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
 

Growing transgender population is medically underserved

The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.

“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”

The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.

“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
 

Additional research can inform practice

Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.

Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added. 

“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
 

Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies

“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.

Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.

Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.

nktwentythree/Getty Images

The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.

Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.

To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.

Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.

However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
 

Growing transgender population is medically underserved

The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.

“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”

The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.

“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
 

Additional research can inform practice

Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.

Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added. 

“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
 

Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies

“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.

Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.

Cardiovascular disease risk is elevated among transgender individuals seeking gender-affirming hormone therapy, according to a retrospective study in 427 patients.

nktwentythree/Getty Images

The transgender population often experiences socioeconomic and health disparities, including reduced access to care, Kara J. Denby, MD, said in an interview.

Previous research suggests that the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may place transgender persons at increased cardiovascular risk, she said.

To identify the potential risk for transgender individuals, the researchers identified baseline cardiovascular risk in patients who had not yet undergone GAHT. Study participants were enrolled in a multidisciplinary transgender program, and the researchers collected data on demographics, medical history, vitals, medications, and laboratory results. The average age of the participants was 26 years, 172 identified as men, 236 as women, and 20 as nonbinary.

Overall, 55% of the participants had a chronic medical condition at baseline. Of these, 74 patients had hypertension, 41 had hyperlipidemia, 2 had a history of stroke, 7 had coronary artery disease, and 4 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

For all patients who did not have documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, their American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ASCVD and QRISK3 risk scores were calculated. “The incidence of undiagnosed hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 6.8% and 11.3% respectively, and of these cases, only 64% and 24% were on appropriate therapies,” noted Dr. Denby of the Cleveland (Ohio) Clinic.

She reported the results Nov. 13 in a presentation at the at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings were limited by the observational nature of the study.

However, the results suggest that transgender patients “appear to be at higher risk than their age-matched historical cohorts regardless of gender,” said Dr. Denby. More research is needed, but cardiovascular disease–prevention efforts may be inadequate in the transgender population given the elevated risk observed in this study, she concluded.
 

Growing transgender population is medically underserved

The transgender population is growing in the United States and internationally, said Dr. Denby. “This group has a history of being marginalized as a result of their transgender status with socioeconomic and health repercussions,” she said. “It is well known that transgender patients are less likely to have access to health care or utilize health care for a variety of reasons, including stigma and fear of mistreatment. This often leads transgender individuals to present to care late in disease processes which makes their disease harder to treat and often leads to emergent medical conditions,” she added.

“Transgender men and women are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and often aren’t screened at recommended intervals because of decreased health care use compared to their cisgender counterparts,” she said. “This may lead to untreated diseases that make them even more likely to suffer poor health outcomes.”

The current study is important because there are “almost no prior data regarding the cardiovascular health status of this population prior to gender-affirming care,” Dr. Denby emphasized. “There are data that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are at higher risk for poor cardiovascular outcomes, but the same data are lacking in the transgender group,” she said.

“As transgender individuals have frequent physician visits while on hormonal therapy, this seems like the opportune time to screen for cardiovascular risk factors and treat previously undiagnosed diseases that can lead to poor health outcomes in the future,” Dr. Denby explained. “If we are able to intervene at an earlier age, perhaps we can help prevent poor health outcomes down the road,” she said.
 

Additional research can inform practice

Dr. Denby said she was not surprised by the findings. “This is a very high-risk population that often doesn’t follow closely in the health care system,” she said. “These data are very important in thinking holistically about transgender patients.” Clinicians can “use the opportunities we have when they present for gender-affirming care to optimize their overall health status, promote long-term health, and reduce the risks associated with hormonal therapy and gender-affirming surgeries,” she noted. “We hope to use this information to change our practice at the Cleveland Clinic and nationally as well. Transgender patients should be screened and aggressively treated for cardiovascular disease and risk factors,” she said.

Key barriers to overcome include determining the best way to reach out to transgender individuals and then making them feel comfortable in the clinical setting, Dr. Denby said. “This means that we must set up clinics that are approachable and safe for all comers. The lack of laws in many states that protect this vulnerable population also contributes to lack of access to care,” she added. 

“We hope to continue research in this arena about how to effectively screen and treat transgender patients as they present to care, not only in the transgender clinic, but also to primary care providers (ob.gyn., internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics) who also care for this population” since no specific guidelines currently exist to direct the screening for cardiovascular patients in particular, she said.
 

Findings offer foundation for LGBTQ cardiovascular studies

“This [study] provides us with a good rationale for why we should be considering cardiovascular health in transgender adults,” Billy A. Caceres, PhD, RN, of Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, said in an interview. “It is largely descriptive, but I think that that’s a good step in terms of at least understanding the magnitude of this problem. In addition, I think that what this abstract might do is help lead to future research that examines potentially the associations between not only gender-affirming hormone therapies but other potential social determinants like discrimination or poverty on the cardiovascular health of transgender people,” he noted.

Dr. Caceres served as chair of the writing group for the recent American Heart Association Scientific Statement: LGBTQ Heart Health published in Circulation. He had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Denby had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Denby KJ et al. AHA 2020, Presentation P2274.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A meta-analysis of 6 RCTs studied the effect of smartphone self-care applications on A1C, weight, blood pressure, and lipids in adult patients with T2DM. All the interventions comprised 4 components: electronic self-management prompts and reminders, personal measuring devices, patient-driven data upload, and remote analysis of the data with feedback. The review excluded studies that used phone calls or lasted fewer than 3 months.

Some improvement in A1C found, but no effect on weight

Telehealth interventions improved A1C more than usual care (6 trials, 884 patients; mean difference = –0.40%; 95% CI, –0.69% to –0.11%).¹ A subset of 4 studies with 560 patients evaluated changes in weight. Patients had a mean age of 61 years and average weight of 84 kg (in 3 of 4 studies reporting baseline weight). Aggregate weight loss was insignificant after 3 to 12 months (mean difference = –0.84 kg; 95% CI, –2.04 kg to 0.36 kg, P = .17). Investigators reported no harms. Limitations of the analysis included high heterogeneity in the main outcome of A1C (I² = 70%) but low heterogeneity within the 4 studies assessing weight (I² = 30%).

Other, small studies found no change in A1C

Two subsequent small RCTs came to different conclusions than the meta-analysis. One compared the impact of individualized physical activity–based text messages in response to pedometer readings with pedometer use alone.² It included 126 adult patients (mean age, 50.5 years) with T2DM who had an A1C > 7% and access to an Internet-connected computer. Researchers excluded patients who were unable to perform moderate physical activity or who had cognitive deficits.

At enrollment, researchers supplied all patients with a pedometer and an appointment with a counselor to set goals for physical activity. They sent 2 text messages daily to the intervention group (and none to the control group) based on uploaded pedometer data. One message detailed physical activity progress and the second encouraged increased physical activity. The primary outcome was mean step counts per month; secondary outcomes included A1C and weight measured at 6 months.

The groups showed no significant difference in A1C (mean difference = 0.07%; 95% CI, –0.47% to 0.34%, P = .75) or weight loss (mean difference = 3.1 lb; 95% CI, –24.5 lb to 18.3 lb, P = .77). Many patients (43%) reported difficulty uploading step counts, receiving texts, and responding to texts. The dropout rate was 24%.

A second RCT with 150 patients, using a less elaborate protocol, assessed the effectiveness of tailored text-message reminders compared with nontailored text messages to improve A1C and body mass index (BMI).³ Patients were adult Iranians (mean age, 52.5 years) with T2DM who owned a cell phone and could receive and read text messages.

Patients filled out a diabetic self-care assessment to identify barriers to improving care and were randomized into 3 groups. The first group received tailored text messages (75% addressing the patient’s top 2 barriers to self-care and 25% general messages). The second group received nontailored text messages of encouragement. The control group received no text messages.

Continue to: After 3 months...

After 3 months, BMI was reduced in both messaging groups but not the control group (tailored text = –0.6 kg/m², nontailored text = –0.5 kg/m², controls = 0.7 kg/m²; P < .05). A1C levels didn’t change significantly. One limitation of the study was that 30% to 35% of the patients in the intervention group had a university-level education, compared with 12% in the control group.

Recommendations

The Department of Veterans Affairs issued guidelines in 2017 regarding management of patients with T2DM in primary care.⁴ The guidelines state that all patients should receive individualized self-management education using “modalities tailored to their preferences” (strong recommendation). They further recommend “offering one or more bidirectional telehealth interventions” in coordination with patients’ health care providers (weak recommendation).

Telehealth interventions may be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin A1C.

The 2017 diabetes self-management recommendations endorsed by the American Diabetes Association state that “strong evidence” shows that incorporating text messaging into diabetes care improves outcomes, enhances feedback loops, and empowers patients.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Telehealth offers mechanisms for patients and physicians to enhance communication about health behaviors and health status. But does it alter outcomes? The cited literature suggests that benefits aren’t a forgone conclusion and that acceptability, ease of use, cost, and individualization are critical issues in telehealth design.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A meta-analysis of 6 RCTs studied the effect of smartphone self-care applications on A1C, weight, blood pressure, and lipids in adult patients with T2DM. All the interventions comprised 4 components: electronic self-management prompts and reminders, personal measuring devices, patient-driven data upload, and remote analysis of the data with feedback. The review excluded studies that used phone calls or lasted fewer than 3 months.

Some improvement in A1C found, but no effect on weight

Telehealth interventions improved A1C more than usual care (6 trials, 884 patients; mean difference = –0.40%; 95% CI, –0.69% to –0.11%).¹ A subset of 4 studies with 560 patients evaluated changes in weight. Patients had a mean age of 61 years and average weight of 84 kg (in 3 of 4 studies reporting baseline weight). Aggregate weight loss was insignificant after 3 to 12 months (mean difference = –0.84 kg; 95% CI, –2.04 kg to 0.36 kg, P = .17). Investigators reported no harms. Limitations of the analysis included high heterogeneity in the main outcome of A1C (I² = 70%) but low heterogeneity within the 4 studies assessing weight (I² = 30%).

Other, small studies found no change in A1C

Two subsequent small RCTs came to different conclusions than the meta-analysis. One compared the impact of individualized physical activity–based text messages in response to pedometer readings with pedometer use alone.² It included 126 adult patients (mean age, 50.5 years) with T2DM who had an A1C > 7% and access to an Internet-connected computer. Researchers excluded patients who were unable to perform moderate physical activity or who had cognitive deficits.

At enrollment, researchers supplied all patients with a pedometer and an appointment with a counselor to set goals for physical activity. They sent 2 text messages daily to the intervention group (and none to the control group) based on uploaded pedometer data. One message detailed physical activity progress and the second encouraged increased physical activity. The primary outcome was mean step counts per month; secondary outcomes included A1C and weight measured at 6 months.

The groups showed no significant difference in A1C (mean difference = 0.07%; 95% CI, –0.47% to 0.34%, P = .75) or weight loss (mean difference = 3.1 lb; 95% CI, –24.5 lb to 18.3 lb, P = .77). Many patients (43%) reported difficulty uploading step counts, receiving texts, and responding to texts. The dropout rate was 24%.

A second RCT with 150 patients, using a less elaborate protocol, assessed the effectiveness of tailored text-message reminders compared with nontailored text messages to improve A1C and body mass index (BMI).³ Patients were adult Iranians (mean age, 52.5 years) with T2DM who owned a cell phone and could receive and read text messages.

Patients filled out a diabetic self-care assessment to identify barriers to improving care and were randomized into 3 groups. The first group received tailored text messages (75% addressing the patient’s top 2 barriers to self-care and 25% general messages). The second group received nontailored text messages of encouragement. The control group received no text messages.

Continue to: After 3 months...

After 3 months, BMI was reduced in both messaging groups but not the control group (tailored text = –0.6 kg/m², nontailored text = –0.5 kg/m², controls = 0.7 kg/m²; P < .05). A1C levels didn’t change significantly. One limitation of the study was that 30% to 35% of the patients in the intervention group had a university-level education, compared with 12% in the control group.

Recommendations

The Department of Veterans Affairs issued guidelines in 2017 regarding management of patients with T2DM in primary care.⁴ The guidelines state that all patients should receive individualized self-management education using “modalities tailored to their preferences” (strong recommendation). They further recommend “offering one or more bidirectional telehealth interventions” in coordination with patients’ health care providers (weak recommendation).

Telehealth interventions may be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin A1C.

The 2017 diabetes self-management recommendations endorsed by the American Diabetes Association state that “strong evidence” shows that incorporating text messaging into diabetes care improves outcomes, enhances feedback loops, and empowers patients.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Telehealth offers mechanisms for patients and physicians to enhance communication about health behaviors and health status. But does it alter outcomes? The cited literature suggests that benefits aren’t a forgone conclusion and that acceptability, ease of use, cost, and individualization are critical issues in telehealth design.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A meta-analysis of 6 RCTs studied the effect of smartphone self-care applications on A1C, weight, blood pressure, and lipids in adult patients with T2DM. All the interventions comprised 4 components: electronic self-management prompts and reminders, personal measuring devices, patient-driven data upload, and remote analysis of the data with feedback. The review excluded studies that used phone calls or lasted fewer than 3 months.

Some improvement in A1C found, but no effect on weight

Telehealth interventions improved A1C more than usual care (6 trials, 884 patients; mean difference = –0.40%; 95% CI, –0.69% to –0.11%).¹ A subset of 4 studies with 560 patients evaluated changes in weight. Patients had a mean age of 61 years and average weight of 84 kg (in 3 of 4 studies reporting baseline weight). Aggregate weight loss was insignificant after 3 to 12 months (mean difference = –0.84 kg; 95% CI, –2.04 kg to 0.36 kg, P = .17). Investigators reported no harms. Limitations of the analysis included high heterogeneity in the main outcome of A1C (I² = 70%) but low heterogeneity within the 4 studies assessing weight (I² = 30%).

Other, small studies found no change in A1C

Two subsequent small RCTs came to different conclusions than the meta-analysis. One compared the impact of individualized physical activity–based text messages in response to pedometer readings with pedometer use alone.² It included 126 adult patients (mean age, 50.5 years) with T2DM who had an A1C > 7% and access to an Internet-connected computer. Researchers excluded patients who were unable to perform moderate physical activity or who had cognitive deficits.

At enrollment, researchers supplied all patients with a pedometer and an appointment with a counselor to set goals for physical activity. They sent 2 text messages daily to the intervention group (and none to the control group) based on uploaded pedometer data. One message detailed physical activity progress and the second encouraged increased physical activity. The primary outcome was mean step counts per month; secondary outcomes included A1C and weight measured at 6 months.

The groups showed no significant difference in A1C (mean difference = 0.07%; 95% CI, –0.47% to 0.34%, P = .75) or weight loss (mean difference = 3.1 lb; 95% CI, –24.5 lb to 18.3 lb, P = .77). Many patients (43%) reported difficulty uploading step counts, receiving texts, and responding to texts. The dropout rate was 24%.

A second RCT with 150 patients, using a less elaborate protocol, assessed the effectiveness of tailored text-message reminders compared with nontailored text messages to improve A1C and body mass index (BMI).³ Patients were adult Iranians (mean age, 52.5 years) with T2DM who owned a cell phone and could receive and read text messages.

Patients filled out a diabetic self-care assessment to identify barriers to improving care and were randomized into 3 groups. The first group received tailored text messages (75% addressing the patient’s top 2 barriers to self-care and 25% general messages). The second group received nontailored text messages of encouragement. The control group received no text messages.

Continue to: After 3 months...

After 3 months, BMI was reduced in both messaging groups but not the control group (tailored text = –0.6 kg/m², nontailored text = –0.5 kg/m², controls = 0.7 kg/m²; P < .05). A1C levels didn’t change significantly. One limitation of the study was that 30% to 35% of the patients in the intervention group had a university-level education, compared with 12% in the control group.

Recommendations

The Department of Veterans Affairs issued guidelines in 2017 regarding management of patients with T2DM in primary care.⁴ The guidelines state that all patients should receive individualized self-management education using “modalities tailored to their preferences” (strong recommendation). They further recommend “offering one or more bidirectional telehealth interventions” in coordination with patients’ health care providers (weak recommendation).

Telehealth interventions may be associated with a decrease in hemoglobin A1C.

The 2017 diabetes self-management recommendations endorsed by the American Diabetes Association state that “strong evidence” shows that incorporating text messaging into diabetes care improves outcomes, enhances feedback loops, and empowers patients.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Telehealth offers mechanisms for patients and physicians to enhance communication about health behaviors and health status. But does it alter outcomes? The cited literature suggests that benefits aren’t a forgone conclusion and that acceptability, ease of use, cost, and individualization are critical issues in telehealth design.

In order for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to shine, compared with meds alone in patients with type-2 diabetes and stable coronary disease (CAD), it needs help from aggressive control of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of three major randomized trials.

Performing PCI in such patients with diabetes conferred further benefit over optimal medical therapy (OMT) for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) only among those whose LDL-C levels had been pushed below the guidelines-specified threshold of 70 mg/dL within 1 year.

At that level of LDL-C control, PCI, compared with the meds-alone strategy, was followed by a nearly 40% drop in 4-year risk for the composite endpoint, which consisted of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Also for patients reaching a 1-year LDL-C of <70 mg/dL, the risk of MACCE was similar for those who had been assigned to coronary bypass surgery (CABG), compared with PCI. But that risk was significantly lower for the CABG group among those reaching LDL-C levels above that threshold.

“The strategy of revascularization with the LDL lowering, that’s the combination that seems to be a winner” in such patients with diabetes and stable CAD, lead author Michael E. Farkouh, MD, MSc, said in an interview.

If their LDL-C “stays above 70 mg/dL, they don’t really enjoy any benefit of PCI. It’s a message to our interventional community to really drive that LDL down,” said Dr. Farkouh, of the University of Toronto. “Not only with statins, but perhaps with PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, and other therapies to lower that LDL-C.”

The analysis, published Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, pooled more than 4,000 patients with diabetes and stable CAD randomized in the BARI 2D, FREEDOM, and COURAGE trials.

The new study adds a twist to an ongoing theme throughout some meta-analyses and clinical trials like ISCHEMIA since the results of COURAGE were unveiled 13 years ago. The latter trial famously saw no significant difference in death, MI, or stroke in patients with stable CAD assigned to OMT with or without PCI. That set off years of controversy about the relative merits of the revascularization and meds-only strategies in stable CAD that persists today.

But, Dr. Farkouh proposed, whether PCI improves clinical outcomes, compared with meds alone, at least in patients with diabetes, may be tied to the success of LDL-C-lowering therapies in reaching that goal, which in the current study was below 70 mg/dL.

“In this analysis of pooled data from the three major trials, we demonstrate that attaining that level of LDL-C at 1 year portends a better outcome for PCI” in patients with diabetes and stable CAD, he said.

The findings “probably need to be studied further, but it is compelling to think that if we can drive the LDL-C down by one year after the procedure, we have better outcomes with PCI,” compared with a meds-only strategy in patients with diabetes and stable CAD. “That really vindicates a lot of those who believe in PCI,” Dr. Farkouh said.

“What’s surprising to me is, if the patient has an LDL less than 70, why is it that there is a benefit of PCI, compared to medical therapy alone? Because they’re already so aggressively managed, you would think there shouldn’t be a benefit,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, New York University, said in an interview. “For me, that part is difficult to understand.”

The finding somewhat contradicts the results of ISCHEMIA, in which OMT – including LDL-C-lowering therapy – was considered more aggressive than usually managed in practice, Bangalore said. Yet the trial saw no outcomes difference between PCI and the more conservative approach, leading some to speculate that PCI may be a better choice when, for whatever reason, medical therapy isn’t optimal.

The observed superiority of PCI over meds-only at the lowest LDL-C levels is, according to Dr. Banagalore, “more likely because of residual confounding, given the fact that they’re combining three different trials, which are aimed to address different sets of questions.” He was an investigator with the FREEDOM and ISCHEMIA trials but isn’t associated with the current report.

The main message from this observational analysis is that “of course, we want to get the LDL as low as possible in these patients with demonstrated cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “Every one of these patients should be shooting for as low an LDL as possible.”

Regardless of revascularization strategy, he said, “we have to get people on a high-intensity statin, or at least their maximally targeted dose, and have a careful and thoughtful conversation about whether they need additional lowering with, perhaps, ezetimibe, if they’re not below the thresholds we’d like to see them at, in this case, 70 mg/dL.”

Still, the current findings that the relative effects of PCI and CABG in these patients may vary by degree of LDL-C reduction “are interesting, but would have to be tested a little bit more directly,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is not affiliated with the analysis.

An accompanying editorial, which also acknowledges the study’s limitations, says its results “are relevant for clinical practice and may pave the way toward the generation of novel personalized medicine models that can optimize care of patients with type-2 diabetes.” 

They “support the concept of an individualized treatment strategy that accounts for a patient’s LDL-C level to estimate clinical outcomes and expected treatment effects after therapeutic interventions,” say the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

“For daily practice, these results also underscore the importance of follow-up LDL-C measurements, both as a risk stratifier and as an indicator for therapy adjustments,” they write, noting that “current guidelines provide no formal recommendation on when to check LDL-C after PCI.”

The meta-analysis followed a total of 4050 patients with diabetes and stable CAD from the three randomized trials, those with evaluable baseline and follow-up LDL-C measurements, for a median of 4 years after the 1-year LDL-C assessment. At that time, at least 90% of patients in each of the trials had statin prescriptions, the group reported.

At one year, 34.5% of the total cohort had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL; their mean was 55.8 mg/dL.

And 42.2% had an LDL-C from 70 mg/dL to <100 mg/dL; their mean was 83.4 mg/dL. Compared with patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, their adjusted hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not elevated at 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86-1.32, P = .54).

Finally, 23.2% had an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL; the mean was 123.0 mg/dL. Compared with the group with the lowest 1-year LDL-C, their adjusted HR for MACCE was increased at 1.46 (95% CI, 1.15 - 1.85, P = .002).

That HR among the 42.3% of patients in the PCI cohort, compared with the 33.3% assigned to meds only, climbed significantly only among those in the lowest 1-year LDL-C stratum: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P = .016). Corresponding HRs in the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL strata were close to unity and nonsignificant at P = .71 and P = .98, respectively.

On the other hand, the 24.4% of patients assigned to CABG showed better MACCE outcomes than those in the meds-only group across all three 1-year LDL-C strata.

The risk of MACCE wasn’t significantly altered by CABG, compared with PCI among patients achieving a 1-year LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL. However, it fell by about one-half for CABG vs. PCI in both the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL-C strata, P = .003 and P = .022, respectively.

Dr. Bangalore said he’s entirely behind the results of the study’s comparison of PCI and CABG. “It’s exactly the hypothesis that I’ve been putting forward, that if you want to achieve results as good as CABG, do PCI with aggressive medical therapy.” That means second-generation drug-eluting stents for the target lesions, “and aggressive medical therapy to address all of the nontarget lesions, specifically in diabetics.”

It’s possible, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, that there is “no longer a dichotomy between revascularization strategies,” with respect to clinical outcomes, in such patients who maintain an LDL less than 70 mg/dL, as the study suggests.

“But I wonder, if it had continued for another 4 years of follow-up, whether we would see the CABG patients start to have more events,” such that the CABG advantage goes away at higher LDL-C levels, he proposed.

Or, Dr. Lloyd-Jones speculated, if all patients had achieved LDL-C below 70 mg/dL, “would there be such a difference between the PCI and CABG groups? My bet would be that it would be small or abolished.”

Dr. Farkouh discloses receiving research grants from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other study authors can be found with the original article. Editorialist Dr. Navarese discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and grants from Abbott and Amgen. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In order for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to shine, compared with meds alone in patients with type-2 diabetes and stable coronary disease (CAD), it needs help from aggressive control of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of three major randomized trials.

Performing PCI in such patients with diabetes conferred further benefit over optimal medical therapy (OMT) for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) only among those whose LDL-C levels had been pushed below the guidelines-specified threshold of 70 mg/dL within 1 year.

At that level of LDL-C control, PCI, compared with the meds-alone strategy, was followed by a nearly 40% drop in 4-year risk for the composite endpoint, which consisted of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Also for patients reaching a 1-year LDL-C of <70 mg/dL, the risk of MACCE was similar for those who had been assigned to coronary bypass surgery (CABG), compared with PCI. But that risk was significantly lower for the CABG group among those reaching LDL-C levels above that threshold.

“The strategy of revascularization with the LDL lowering, that’s the combination that seems to be a winner” in such patients with diabetes and stable CAD, lead author Michael E. Farkouh, MD, MSc, said in an interview.

If their LDL-C “stays above 70 mg/dL, they don’t really enjoy any benefit of PCI. It’s a message to our interventional community to really drive that LDL down,” said Dr. Farkouh, of the University of Toronto. “Not only with statins, but perhaps with PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, and other therapies to lower that LDL-C.”

The analysis, published Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, pooled more than 4,000 patients with diabetes and stable CAD randomized in the BARI 2D, FREEDOM, and COURAGE trials.

The new study adds a twist to an ongoing theme throughout some meta-analyses and clinical trials like ISCHEMIA since the results of COURAGE were unveiled 13 years ago. The latter trial famously saw no significant difference in death, MI, or stroke in patients with stable CAD assigned to OMT with or without PCI. That set off years of controversy about the relative merits of the revascularization and meds-only strategies in stable CAD that persists today.

But, Dr. Farkouh proposed, whether PCI improves clinical outcomes, compared with meds alone, at least in patients with diabetes, may be tied to the success of LDL-C-lowering therapies in reaching that goal, which in the current study was below 70 mg/dL.

“In this analysis of pooled data from the three major trials, we demonstrate that attaining that level of LDL-C at 1 year portends a better outcome for PCI” in patients with diabetes and stable CAD, he said.

The findings “probably need to be studied further, but it is compelling to think that if we can drive the LDL-C down by one year after the procedure, we have better outcomes with PCI,” compared with a meds-only strategy in patients with diabetes and stable CAD. “That really vindicates a lot of those who believe in PCI,” Dr. Farkouh said.

“What’s surprising to me is, if the patient has an LDL less than 70, why is it that there is a benefit of PCI, compared to medical therapy alone? Because they’re already so aggressively managed, you would think there shouldn’t be a benefit,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, New York University, said in an interview. “For me, that part is difficult to understand.”

The finding somewhat contradicts the results of ISCHEMIA, in which OMT – including LDL-C-lowering therapy – was considered more aggressive than usually managed in practice, Bangalore said. Yet the trial saw no outcomes difference between PCI and the more conservative approach, leading some to speculate that PCI may be a better choice when, for whatever reason, medical therapy isn’t optimal.

The observed superiority of PCI over meds-only at the lowest LDL-C levels is, according to Dr. Banagalore, “more likely because of residual confounding, given the fact that they’re combining three different trials, which are aimed to address different sets of questions.” He was an investigator with the FREEDOM and ISCHEMIA trials but isn’t associated with the current report.

The main message from this observational analysis is that “of course, we want to get the LDL as low as possible in these patients with demonstrated cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “Every one of these patients should be shooting for as low an LDL as possible.”

Regardless of revascularization strategy, he said, “we have to get people on a high-intensity statin, or at least their maximally targeted dose, and have a careful and thoughtful conversation about whether they need additional lowering with, perhaps, ezetimibe, if they’re not below the thresholds we’d like to see them at, in this case, 70 mg/dL.”

Still, the current findings that the relative effects of PCI and CABG in these patients may vary by degree of LDL-C reduction “are interesting, but would have to be tested a little bit more directly,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is not affiliated with the analysis.

An accompanying editorial, which also acknowledges the study’s limitations, says its results “are relevant for clinical practice and may pave the way toward the generation of novel personalized medicine models that can optimize care of patients with type-2 diabetes.” 

They “support the concept of an individualized treatment strategy that accounts for a patient’s LDL-C level to estimate clinical outcomes and expected treatment effects after therapeutic interventions,” say the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

“For daily practice, these results also underscore the importance of follow-up LDL-C measurements, both as a risk stratifier and as an indicator for therapy adjustments,” they write, noting that “current guidelines provide no formal recommendation on when to check LDL-C after PCI.”

The meta-analysis followed a total of 4050 patients with diabetes and stable CAD from the three randomized trials, those with evaluable baseline and follow-up LDL-C measurements, for a median of 4 years after the 1-year LDL-C assessment. At that time, at least 90% of patients in each of the trials had statin prescriptions, the group reported.

At one year, 34.5% of the total cohort had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL; their mean was 55.8 mg/dL.

And 42.2% had an LDL-C from 70 mg/dL to <100 mg/dL; their mean was 83.4 mg/dL. Compared with patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, their adjusted hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not elevated at 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86-1.32, P = .54).

Finally, 23.2% had an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL; the mean was 123.0 mg/dL. Compared with the group with the lowest 1-year LDL-C, their adjusted HR for MACCE was increased at 1.46 (95% CI, 1.15 - 1.85, P = .002).

That HR among the 42.3% of patients in the PCI cohort, compared with the 33.3% assigned to meds only, climbed significantly only among those in the lowest 1-year LDL-C stratum: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P = .016). Corresponding HRs in the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL strata were close to unity and nonsignificant at P = .71 and P = .98, respectively.

On the other hand, the 24.4% of patients assigned to CABG showed better MACCE outcomes than those in the meds-only group across all three 1-year LDL-C strata.

The risk of MACCE wasn’t significantly altered by CABG, compared with PCI among patients achieving a 1-year LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL. However, it fell by about one-half for CABG vs. PCI in both the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL-C strata, P = .003 and P = .022, respectively.

Dr. Bangalore said he’s entirely behind the results of the study’s comparison of PCI and CABG. “It’s exactly the hypothesis that I’ve been putting forward, that if you want to achieve results as good as CABG, do PCI with aggressive medical therapy.” That means second-generation drug-eluting stents for the target lesions, “and aggressive medical therapy to address all of the nontarget lesions, specifically in diabetics.”

It’s possible, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, that there is “no longer a dichotomy between revascularization strategies,” with respect to clinical outcomes, in such patients who maintain an LDL less than 70 mg/dL, as the study suggests.

“But I wonder, if it had continued for another 4 years of follow-up, whether we would see the CABG patients start to have more events,” such that the CABG advantage goes away at higher LDL-C levels, he proposed.

Or, Dr. Lloyd-Jones speculated, if all patients had achieved LDL-C below 70 mg/dL, “would there be such a difference between the PCI and CABG groups? My bet would be that it would be small or abolished.”

Dr. Farkouh discloses receiving research grants from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other study authors can be found with the original article. Editorialist Dr. Navarese discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and grants from Abbott and Amgen. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In order for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to shine, compared with meds alone in patients with type-2 diabetes and stable coronary disease (CAD), it needs help from aggressive control of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of three major randomized trials.

Performing PCI in such patients with diabetes conferred further benefit over optimal medical therapy (OMT) for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) only among those whose LDL-C levels had been pushed below the guidelines-specified threshold of 70 mg/dL within 1 year.

At that level of LDL-C control, PCI, compared with the meds-alone strategy, was followed by a nearly 40% drop in 4-year risk for the composite endpoint, which consisted of death from any cause or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Also for patients reaching a 1-year LDL-C of <70 mg/dL, the risk of MACCE was similar for those who had been assigned to coronary bypass surgery (CABG), compared with PCI. But that risk was significantly lower for the CABG group among those reaching LDL-C levels above that threshold.

“The strategy of revascularization with the LDL lowering, that’s the combination that seems to be a winner” in such patients with diabetes and stable CAD, lead author Michael E. Farkouh, MD, MSc, said in an interview.

If their LDL-C “stays above 70 mg/dL, they don’t really enjoy any benefit of PCI. It’s a message to our interventional community to really drive that LDL down,” said Dr. Farkouh, of the University of Toronto. “Not only with statins, but perhaps with PCSK9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, and other therapies to lower that LDL-C.”

The analysis, published Nov. 2 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, pooled more than 4,000 patients with diabetes and stable CAD randomized in the BARI 2D, FREEDOM, and COURAGE trials.

The new study adds a twist to an ongoing theme throughout some meta-analyses and clinical trials like ISCHEMIA since the results of COURAGE were unveiled 13 years ago. The latter trial famously saw no significant difference in death, MI, or stroke in patients with stable CAD assigned to OMT with or without PCI. That set off years of controversy about the relative merits of the revascularization and meds-only strategies in stable CAD that persists today.

But, Dr. Farkouh proposed, whether PCI improves clinical outcomes, compared with meds alone, at least in patients with diabetes, may be tied to the success of LDL-C-lowering therapies in reaching that goal, which in the current study was below 70 mg/dL.

“In this analysis of pooled data from the three major trials, we demonstrate that attaining that level of LDL-C at 1 year portends a better outcome for PCI” in patients with diabetes and stable CAD, he said.

The findings “probably need to be studied further, but it is compelling to think that if we can drive the LDL-C down by one year after the procedure, we have better outcomes with PCI,” compared with a meds-only strategy in patients with diabetes and stable CAD. “That really vindicates a lot of those who believe in PCI,” Dr. Farkouh said.

“What’s surprising to me is, if the patient has an LDL less than 70, why is it that there is a benefit of PCI, compared to medical therapy alone? Because they’re already so aggressively managed, you would think there shouldn’t be a benefit,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, New York University, said in an interview. “For me, that part is difficult to understand.”

The finding somewhat contradicts the results of ISCHEMIA, in which OMT – including LDL-C-lowering therapy – was considered more aggressive than usually managed in practice, Bangalore said. Yet the trial saw no outcomes difference between PCI and the more conservative approach, leading some to speculate that PCI may be a better choice when, for whatever reason, medical therapy isn’t optimal.

The observed superiority of PCI over meds-only at the lowest LDL-C levels is, according to Dr. Banagalore, “more likely because of residual confounding, given the fact that they’re combining three different trials, which are aimed to address different sets of questions.” He was an investigator with the FREEDOM and ISCHEMIA trials but isn’t associated with the current report.

The main message from this observational analysis is that “of course, we want to get the LDL as low as possible in these patients with demonstrated cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, ScM, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “Every one of these patients should be shooting for as low an LDL as possible.”

Regardless of revascularization strategy, he said, “we have to get people on a high-intensity statin, or at least their maximally targeted dose, and have a careful and thoughtful conversation about whether they need additional lowering with, perhaps, ezetimibe, if they’re not below the thresholds we’d like to see them at, in this case, 70 mg/dL.”

Still, the current findings that the relative effects of PCI and CABG in these patients may vary by degree of LDL-C reduction “are interesting, but would have to be tested a little bit more directly,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is not affiliated with the analysis.

An accompanying editorial, which also acknowledges the study’s limitations, says its results “are relevant for clinical practice and may pave the way toward the generation of novel personalized medicine models that can optimize care of patients with type-2 diabetes.” 

They “support the concept of an individualized treatment strategy that accounts for a patient’s LDL-C level to estimate clinical outcomes and expected treatment effects after therapeutic interventions,” say the authors, led by Eliano P. Navarese, MD, PhD, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bydgoszcz, Poland.

“For daily practice, these results also underscore the importance of follow-up LDL-C measurements, both as a risk stratifier and as an indicator for therapy adjustments,” they write, noting that “current guidelines provide no formal recommendation on when to check LDL-C after PCI.”

The meta-analysis followed a total of 4050 patients with diabetes and stable CAD from the three randomized trials, those with evaluable baseline and follow-up LDL-C measurements, for a median of 4 years after the 1-year LDL-C assessment. At that time, at least 90% of patients in each of the trials had statin prescriptions, the group reported.

At one year, 34.5% of the total cohort had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL; their mean was 55.8 mg/dL.

And 42.2% had an LDL-C from 70 mg/dL to <100 mg/dL; their mean was 83.4 mg/dL. Compared with patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, their adjusted hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not elevated at 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86-1.32, P = .54).

Finally, 23.2% had an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL; the mean was 123.0 mg/dL. Compared with the group with the lowest 1-year LDL-C, their adjusted HR for MACCE was increased at 1.46 (95% CI, 1.15 - 1.85, P = .002).

That HR among the 42.3% of patients in the PCI cohort, compared with the 33.3% assigned to meds only, climbed significantly only among those in the lowest 1-year LDL-C stratum: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.40-0.91, P = .016). Corresponding HRs in the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL strata were close to unity and nonsignificant at P = .71 and P = .98, respectively.

On the other hand, the 24.4% of patients assigned to CABG showed better MACCE outcomes than those in the meds-only group across all three 1-year LDL-C strata.

The risk of MACCE wasn’t significantly altered by CABG, compared with PCI among patients achieving a 1-year LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL. However, it fell by about one-half for CABG vs. PCI in both the mid-range and highest 1-year LDL-C strata, P = .003 and P = .022, respectively.

Dr. Bangalore said he’s entirely behind the results of the study’s comparison of PCI and CABG. “It’s exactly the hypothesis that I’ve been putting forward, that if you want to achieve results as good as CABG, do PCI with aggressive medical therapy.” That means second-generation drug-eluting stents for the target lesions, “and aggressive medical therapy to address all of the nontarget lesions, specifically in diabetics.”

It’s possible, Dr. Lloyd-Jones said, that there is “no longer a dichotomy between revascularization strategies,” with respect to clinical outcomes, in such patients who maintain an LDL less than 70 mg/dL, as the study suggests.

“But I wonder, if it had continued for another 4 years of follow-up, whether we would see the CABG patients start to have more events,” such that the CABG advantage goes away at higher LDL-C levels, he proposed.

Or, Dr. Lloyd-Jones speculated, if all patients had achieved LDL-C below 70 mg/dL, “would there be such a difference between the PCI and CABG groups? My bet would be that it would be small or abolished.”

Dr. Farkouh discloses receiving research grants from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Novartis. Disclosures for the other study authors can be found with the original article. Editorialist Dr. Navarese discloses receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, and Pfizer; and grants from Abbott and Amgen. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new proposed rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would expand coverage for continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) under Medicare to include devices that aren’t approved for making treatment decisions.

Getty

If accepted, the proposed rule would classify all approved CGMs as durable medical equipment under Medicare Part B and establish payment amounts for all related supplies. The move primarily affects Medtronic’s Guardian Connect System, which has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingersticks in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Two other CGM systems, the Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and are, therefore, already covered under Medicare, as is the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ Technology system.

According to a CMS statement, “CGMs that are not approved for use in making diabetes treatment decisions can be used to alert beneficiaries about potentially dangerous glucose levels while they sleep and that they should further test their glucose levels using a blood glucose monitor. ... This proposal would give Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians a wider range of technology and devices to choose from in managing diabetes.”

Sean Salmon, executive vice president and president of the Diabetes Group at Medtronic said in an interview that the company is “very encouraged” by the proposal. “Importantly, the proposed rule would enable continuity of therapy for people on Medtronic insulin pumps aging into Medicare – including Medtronic hybrid closed loop systems, which automatically adjust insulin delivery based on readings from the integrated CGM.”

The type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF also applauded the proposed rule, noting in a statement, “CGM technology can be an integral component of artificial pancreas systems and important on its own to significantly improve diabetes management and enable users to avoid potential crises and risks for long-term complications. JDRF is heartened by this proposed change as it has long advocated for coverage, affordability and choice of all therapies to help ensure people with T1D have what they need to survive.”

The proposal is part of a broader set of proposed changes to Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotic Devices and Supplies (DMEPOS) coverage and payment policies. Comments on the entire document can be submitted through Jan. 4, 2021 to the Federal Register.

A new proposed rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would expand coverage for continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) under Medicare to include devices that aren’t approved for making treatment decisions.

Getty

If accepted, the proposed rule would classify all approved CGMs as durable medical equipment under Medicare Part B and establish payment amounts for all related supplies. The move primarily affects Medtronic’s Guardian Connect System, which has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingersticks in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Two other CGM systems, the Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and are, therefore, already covered under Medicare, as is the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ Technology system.

According to a CMS statement, “CGMs that are not approved for use in making diabetes treatment decisions can be used to alert beneficiaries about potentially dangerous glucose levels while they sleep and that they should further test their glucose levels using a blood glucose monitor. ... This proposal would give Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians a wider range of technology and devices to choose from in managing diabetes.”

Sean Salmon, executive vice president and president of the Diabetes Group at Medtronic said in an interview that the company is “very encouraged” by the proposal. “Importantly, the proposed rule would enable continuity of therapy for people on Medtronic insulin pumps aging into Medicare – including Medtronic hybrid closed loop systems, which automatically adjust insulin delivery based on readings from the integrated CGM.”

The type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF also applauded the proposed rule, noting in a statement, “CGM technology can be an integral component of artificial pancreas systems and important on its own to significantly improve diabetes management and enable users to avoid potential crises and risks for long-term complications. JDRF is heartened by this proposed change as it has long advocated for coverage, affordability and choice of all therapies to help ensure people with T1D have what they need to survive.”

The proposal is part of a broader set of proposed changes to Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotic Devices and Supplies (DMEPOS) coverage and payment policies. Comments on the entire document can be submitted through Jan. 4, 2021 to the Federal Register.

A new proposed rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would expand coverage for continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) under Medicare to include devices that aren’t approved for making treatment decisions.

Getty

If accepted, the proposed rule would classify all approved CGMs as durable medical equipment under Medicare Part B and establish payment amounts for all related supplies. The move primarily affects Medtronic’s Guardian Connect System, which has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingersticks in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Two other CGM systems, the Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and are, therefore, already covered under Medicare, as is the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ Technology system.

According to a CMS statement, “CGMs that are not approved for use in making diabetes treatment decisions can be used to alert beneficiaries about potentially dangerous glucose levels while they sleep and that they should further test their glucose levels using a blood glucose monitor. ... This proposal would give Medicare beneficiaries and their physicians a wider range of technology and devices to choose from in managing diabetes.”

Sean Salmon, executive vice president and president of the Diabetes Group at Medtronic said in an interview that the company is “very encouraged” by the proposal. “Importantly, the proposed rule would enable continuity of therapy for people on Medtronic insulin pumps aging into Medicare – including Medtronic hybrid closed loop systems, which automatically adjust insulin delivery based on readings from the integrated CGM.”

The type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF also applauded the proposed rule, noting in a statement, “CGM technology can be an integral component of artificial pancreas systems and important on its own to significantly improve diabetes management and enable users to avoid potential crises and risks for long-term complications. JDRF is heartened by this proposed change as it has long advocated for coverage, affordability and choice of all therapies to help ensure people with T1D have what they need to survive.”

The proposal is part of a broader set of proposed changes to Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotic Devices and Supplies (DMEPOS) coverage and payment policies. Comments on the entire document can be submitted through Jan. 4, 2021 to the Federal Register.