Diabetes

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

KENT, WASHINGTON – The first thing I learned in this outbreak is that my sense of alarm has been deadened by years of medical practice. As a primary care doctor working south of Seattle, in the University of Washington’s Kent neighborhood clinic, I have dealt with long hours, the sometimes-insurmountable problems of the patients I care for, and the constant, gnawing fear of missing something and doing harm. To get through my day, I’ve done my best to rationalize that fear, to explain it away.

I can’t explain how, when I heard the news of the coronavirus epidemic in China, I didn’t think it would affect me. I can’t explain how news of the first patient presenting to an urgent care north of Seattle didn’t cause me, or all health care providers, to think about how we would respond. I can’t explain why so many doctors were dismissive of the very real threat that was about to explode. I can’t explain why it took 6 weeks for the COVID-19 outbreak to seem real to me.

If you work in a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital, or urgent care center and have not seen a coronavirus case yet, you may have time to think through what is likely to happen in your community. After Washington state’s first case of COVID-19 became publicly known, few health care workers or leaders took the opportunity to work on our protocols, run drills, and check our supplies. We did not activate a chain of command or decide how information was going to be communicated to the front line and back to leadership. Few of us ran worst-case scenarios.

By March 12, we had 376 confirmed cases, and likely more than a thousand are undetected. The moment of realization of the severity of the outbreak didn’t come to me until Saturday, Feb. 29. In the week prior, several patients had come into the clinic with symptoms and potential exposures, but not meeting the narrow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testing criteria. They were all advised by the Washington Department of Health to go home. At the time, it seemed like decent advice. Frontline providers didn’t know that there had been two cases of community transmission weeks before, or that one was about to become the first death in Washington state. I still advised patients to quarantine themselves. In the absence of testing, we had to assume everyone was positive and should stay home until 72 hours after their symptoms resolved. Studying the state’s FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] intently, I wrote insistent letters to inflexible bosses, explaining that their employees needed to stay home.

I worked that Saturday. Half of my patients had coughs. Our team insisted that they wear masks. One woman refused, and I refused to see her until she did. In a customer service–oriented health care system, I had been schooled to accommodate almost any patient request. But I was not about to put my staff and other patients at risk. Reluctantly, she complied.

On my lunch break, my partner called me to tell me he was at the grocery store. “Why?” I asked, since we usually went together. It became clear he was worried about an outbreak. He had been following the news closely and tried to tell me how deadly this could get and how quickly the disease could spread. I brushed his fears aside, as more evidence of his sweet and overly cautious nature. “It’ll be fine,” I said with misplaced confidence.

Later that day, I heard about the first death and the outbreak at Life Care, a nursing home north of Seattle. I learned that firefighters who had responded to distress calls were under quarantine. I learned through an epidemiologist that there were likely hundreds of undetected cases throughout Washington.

On Monday, our clinic decided to convert all cases with symptoms into telemedicine visits. Luckily, we had been building the capacity to see and treat patients virtually for a while. We have ramped up quickly, but there have been bumps along the way. It’s difficult to convince those who are anxious about their symptoms to allow us to use telemedicine for everyone’s safety. It is unclear how much liability we are taking on as individual providers with this approach or who will speak up for us if something goes wrong.

Patients don’t seem to know where to get their information, and they have been turning to increasingly bizarre sources. For the poorest, who have had so much trouble accessing care, I cannot blame them for not knowing whom to trust. I post what I know on Twitter and Facebook, but I know I’m no match for cynical social media algorithms.

Testing was still not available at my clinic the first week of March, and it remains largely unavailable throughout much of the country. We have lost weeks of opportunity to contain this. Luckily, on March 4, the University of Washington was finally allowed to use their homegrown test and bypass the limited supply from the CDC. But our capacity at UW is still limited, and the test remained unavailable to the majority of those potentially showing symptoms until March 9.

I am used to being less worried than my patients. I am used to reassuring them. But over the first week of March, I had an eerie sense that my alarm far outstripped theirs. I got relatively few questions about coronavirus, even as the number of cases continued to rise. It wasn’t until the end of the week that I noticed a few were truly fearful. Patients started stealing the gloves and the hand sanitizer, and we had to zealously guard them. My hands are raw from washing.

Throughout this time, I have been grateful for a centralized drive with clear protocols. I am grateful for clear messages at the beginning and end of the day from our CEO. I hope that other clinics model this and have daily in-person meetings, because too much cannot be conveyed in an email when the situation changes hourly.

But our health system nationally was already stretched thin before, and providers have sacrificed a lot, especially in the most critical settings, to provide decent patient care. Now we are asked to risk our health and safety, and our family’s, and I worry about the erosion of trust and work conditions for those on the front lines. I also worry our patients won’t believe us when we have allowed the costs of care to continue to rise and ruin their lives. I worry about the millions of people without doctors to call because they have no insurance, and because so many primary care physicians have left unsustainable jobs.

I am grateful that few of my colleagues have been sick and that those that were called out. I am grateful for the new nurse practitioners in our clinic who took the lion’s share of possibly affected patients and triaged hundreds of phone calls, creating note and message templates that we all use. I am grateful that my clinic manager insisted on doing a drill with all the staff members.

I am grateful that we were reminded that we are a team and that if the call center and cleaning crews and front desk are excluded, then our protocols are useless. I am grateful that our registered nurses quickly shifted to triage. I am grateful that I have testing available.

This week, for the first time since I started working, multiple patients asked how I am doing and expressed their thanks. I am most grateful for them.

I can’t tell you what to do or what is going to happen, but I can tell you that you need to prepare now. You need to run drills and catch the holes in your plans before the pandemic reaches you. You need to be creative and honest about the flaws in your organization that this pandemic will inevitably expose. You need to meet with your team every day and remember that we are all going to be stretched even thinner than before.

Most of us will get through this, but many of us won’t. And for those who do, we need to be honest about our successes and failures. We need to build a system that can do better next time. Because this is not the last pandemic we will face.
 

Dr. Elisabeth Poorman is a general internist at a University of Washington neighborhood clinic in Kent. She completed her residency at Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance and specializes in addiction medicine. She also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Diabetes used to be rare among Native Americans. Before the 1950s, there were few accounts of lifestyle diseases like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), says Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan, a member of the Choctaw Nation and University of Oklahoma researcher who studies the impacts of food environments on Native American health: “They couldn’t really be found in Native American communities. The major problem was malnutrition.” In 1940, only 21 cases of T2DM were identified among the Akimel O’odham people living in the Sonoran Desert. By 2006, 38% of adults in that tribe had T2DM.

The rate of diagnosed T2DM among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults is now double that of white adults, and the incidence among children and young adults is > 10 times that of other groups.

“Focusing on biologic factors alone overlooks factors that propel development of chronic diseases,” say researchers from the University of New Mexico and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Native Diabetes Wellness program. Poverty, historical trauma, and adverse childhood experiences all play a part in AI/AN health issues. But food insecurity—uncertain or limited access to enough food for a healthy life—also correlates with greater risk of T2DM. In 2016, nearly 30% of AI/AN households were food insecure, compared with 16% of non-AI/AN households. Rates of food insecurity among AI/AN children are about double the national rates. Compounding the problem, “food deserts” are still common in Indian Country.

Native Americans used to eat healthier, living off the land, hunting, and fishing. Then federal mandates affected the land and water resources of tribal nations, disrupting indigenous food systems and reducing access to traditional foods, the researchers say. In the 1970s, the federal government began buying up surplus foods to support prices for farmers, then providing them to Native communities. The food was needed—the problem was that it consisted largely of high-salt, high-fat, high-sugar canned foods. One consequence of the calorie-dense commodities-based diet was “commod bod,” a phrase coined in Native communities.

Recently some traditional foods, like hand-harvested wild rice, grass-fed bison, and wild-caught Pacific salmon, have been added to the food assistance programs; the US Department of Agriculture cites high rates of participant satisfaction. About one-third of 103 tribal organizations also now have “grocery-store–like models” where aid recipients can select their own foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables.

However, in February, the Trump administration released a proposal to overhaul the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, replacing half the benefits people receive with boxed, nonperishable foods. According to recent research, Jernigan says, 60% of Native Americans who receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program  rely on the program as their primary source of food.

It became clear that one way to help AI/AN communities reclaim their health was to bring back the old ways. The Indian Health Service (IHS) Tribal Leaders Diabetes Committee has supported programs in which AI/AN communities integrate their own cultures and history, to encourage healthier lifestyles. The concept of a “food sovereignty movement” evolved into programs like the Traditional Foods Project (TFP).

The TFP has provided “modest” funding to AI/AN communities to design their own interventions promoting access to traditional foods, physical activity, and social support. The project began in 2008 with 11 tribes and tribal organizations, and expanded to 17 in 2009.

Recently, the CDC researchers reported on how the TFP was doing, evaluating data the tribal partners collected between 2008 and 2014 in 3 domains: traditional foods, physical activity, and social support. Each partner used various strategies aimed at behavior changes, with unique solutions in each group. Some of their initiatives covered > 1 domain: gardening, for instance, involved physical activity, social support, and traditional foods.

From 82% to 94% of the partners (numbers varied as more communities joined the TFP) reported gardening during summer months; 59% to 82% also gardened during the winter. Many started community gardens, but school gardens had the most participants. In 1 year, 6 communities had school gardens involving 3,017 people. Most of the partners also began focusing on sustainability, using heirloom seeds, for instance. One coordinator took a course to become a Master Composter, balancing traditional ecological knowledge and Western science, leading to “large yields of harvested produce.”

Healthy food outlets increased, reported by 11 of 16 communities in T10, up from 2 of 11 in the first test period. Moreover, by T10, nearly two-thirds of the partners reported that healthy food selections were available at 1 or more venues, including worksites, supermarkets, vending machines, and restaurants.

Most partners reported health education activities for each period, involving nearly 11,000 participants. Storytelling was an important teaching activity, the researchers say. Head Start organizations added physical activities, gardening, and a health education curriculum.

The partners measured changes such as weight loss, improved physical activity, and healthy food choices in 69 of 156 data points recorded during the 10 periods. In most periods, almost half of the partners measured participant change in 1 or more domains. As many as 7,500 participants took part in organized physical activities for 1 partner during 1 period. Involvement in activities peaked in the middle years but leveled off at a median of about 65%.

The researchers also gathered observations from the partners. The program’s impact was visible not only community-wide, but among individuals. One young man who had struggled with substance abuse said he “found himself through connection with the earth” in the community garden. Another participant said, “Food is good medicine.”

A thread in every discussion, the researchers say, was: “Traditional foods have become a way to talk about health.” The way to reclaim health, the partners came to believe, was to reconnect with the land, water, traditional foodways, and “all that they mean.”

Diabetes used to be rare among Native Americans. Before the 1950s, there were few accounts of lifestyle diseases like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), says Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan, a member of the Choctaw Nation and University of Oklahoma researcher who studies the impacts of food environments on Native American health: “They couldn’t really be found in Native American communities. The major problem was malnutrition.” In 1940, only 21 cases of T2DM were identified among the Akimel O’odham people living in the Sonoran Desert. By 2006, 38% of adults in that tribe had T2DM.

The rate of diagnosed T2DM among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults is now double that of white adults, and the incidence among children and young adults is > 10 times that of other groups.

“Focusing on biologic factors alone overlooks factors that propel development of chronic diseases,” say researchers from the University of New Mexico and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Native Diabetes Wellness program. Poverty, historical trauma, and adverse childhood experiences all play a part in AI/AN health issues. But food insecurity—uncertain or limited access to enough food for a healthy life—also correlates with greater risk of T2DM. In 2016, nearly 30% of AI/AN households were food insecure, compared with 16% of non-AI/AN households. Rates of food insecurity among AI/AN children are about double the national rates. Compounding the problem, “food deserts” are still common in Indian Country.

Native Americans used to eat healthier, living off the land, hunting, and fishing. Then federal mandates affected the land and water resources of tribal nations, disrupting indigenous food systems and reducing access to traditional foods, the researchers say. In the 1970s, the federal government began buying up surplus foods to support prices for farmers, then providing them to Native communities. The food was needed—the problem was that it consisted largely of high-salt, high-fat, high-sugar canned foods. One consequence of the calorie-dense commodities-based diet was “commod bod,” a phrase coined in Native communities.

Recently some traditional foods, like hand-harvested wild rice, grass-fed bison, and wild-caught Pacific salmon, have been added to the food assistance programs; the US Department of Agriculture cites high rates of participant satisfaction. About one-third of 103 tribal organizations also now have “grocery-store–like models” where aid recipients can select their own foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables.

However, in February, the Trump administration released a proposal to overhaul the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, replacing half the benefits people receive with boxed, nonperishable foods. According to recent research, Jernigan says, 60% of Native Americans who receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program  rely on the program as their primary source of food.

It became clear that one way to help AI/AN communities reclaim their health was to bring back the old ways. The Indian Health Service (IHS) Tribal Leaders Diabetes Committee has supported programs in which AI/AN communities integrate their own cultures and history, to encourage healthier lifestyles. The concept of a “food sovereignty movement” evolved into programs like the Traditional Foods Project (TFP).

The TFP has provided “modest” funding to AI/AN communities to design their own interventions promoting access to traditional foods, physical activity, and social support. The project began in 2008 with 11 tribes and tribal organizations, and expanded to 17 in 2009.

Recently, the CDC researchers reported on how the TFP was doing, evaluating data the tribal partners collected between 2008 and 2014 in 3 domains: traditional foods, physical activity, and social support. Each partner used various strategies aimed at behavior changes, with unique solutions in each group. Some of their initiatives covered > 1 domain: gardening, for instance, involved physical activity, social support, and traditional foods.

From 82% to 94% of the partners (numbers varied as more communities joined the TFP) reported gardening during summer months; 59% to 82% also gardened during the winter. Many started community gardens, but school gardens had the most participants. In 1 year, 6 communities had school gardens involving 3,017 people. Most of the partners also began focusing on sustainability, using heirloom seeds, for instance. One coordinator took a course to become a Master Composter, balancing traditional ecological knowledge and Western science, leading to “large yields of harvested produce.”

Healthy food outlets increased, reported by 11 of 16 communities in T10, up from 2 of 11 in the first test period. Moreover, by T10, nearly two-thirds of the partners reported that healthy food selections were available at 1 or more venues, including worksites, supermarkets, vending machines, and restaurants.

Most partners reported health education activities for each period, involving nearly 11,000 participants. Storytelling was an important teaching activity, the researchers say. Head Start organizations added physical activities, gardening, and a health education curriculum.

The partners measured changes such as weight loss, improved physical activity, and healthy food choices in 69 of 156 data points recorded during the 10 periods. In most periods, almost half of the partners measured participant change in 1 or more domains. As many as 7,500 participants took part in organized physical activities for 1 partner during 1 period. Involvement in activities peaked in the middle years but leveled off at a median of about 65%.

The researchers also gathered observations from the partners. The program’s impact was visible not only community-wide, but among individuals. One young man who had struggled with substance abuse said he “found himself through connection with the earth” in the community garden. Another participant said, “Food is good medicine.”

A thread in every discussion, the researchers say, was: “Traditional foods have become a way to talk about health.” The way to reclaim health, the partners came to believe, was to reconnect with the land, water, traditional foodways, and “all that they mean.”

Diabetes used to be rare among Native Americans. Before the 1950s, there were few accounts of lifestyle diseases like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), says Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan, a member of the Choctaw Nation and University of Oklahoma researcher who studies the impacts of food environments on Native American health: “They couldn’t really be found in Native American communities. The major problem was malnutrition.” In 1940, only 21 cases of T2DM were identified among the Akimel O’odham people living in the Sonoran Desert. By 2006, 38% of adults in that tribe had T2DM.

The rate of diagnosed T2DM among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults is now double that of white adults, and the incidence among children and young adults is > 10 times that of other groups.

“Focusing on biologic factors alone overlooks factors that propel development of chronic diseases,” say researchers from the University of New Mexico and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Native Diabetes Wellness program. Poverty, historical trauma, and adverse childhood experiences all play a part in AI/AN health issues. But food insecurity—uncertain or limited access to enough food for a healthy life—also correlates with greater risk of T2DM. In 2016, nearly 30% of AI/AN households were food insecure, compared with 16% of non-AI/AN households. Rates of food insecurity among AI/AN children are about double the national rates. Compounding the problem, “food deserts” are still common in Indian Country.

Native Americans used to eat healthier, living off the land, hunting, and fishing. Then federal mandates affected the land and water resources of tribal nations, disrupting indigenous food systems and reducing access to traditional foods, the researchers say. In the 1970s, the federal government began buying up surplus foods to support prices for farmers, then providing them to Native communities. The food was needed—the problem was that it consisted largely of high-salt, high-fat, high-sugar canned foods. One consequence of the calorie-dense commodities-based diet was “commod bod,” a phrase coined in Native communities.

Recently some traditional foods, like hand-harvested wild rice, grass-fed bison, and wild-caught Pacific salmon, have been added to the food assistance programs; the US Department of Agriculture cites high rates of participant satisfaction. About one-third of 103 tribal organizations also now have “grocery-store–like models” where aid recipients can select their own foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables.

However, in February, the Trump administration released a proposal to overhaul the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, replacing half the benefits people receive with boxed, nonperishable foods. According to recent research, Jernigan says, 60% of Native Americans who receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program  rely on the program as their primary source of food.

It became clear that one way to help AI/AN communities reclaim their health was to bring back the old ways. The Indian Health Service (IHS) Tribal Leaders Diabetes Committee has supported programs in which AI/AN communities integrate their own cultures and history, to encourage healthier lifestyles. The concept of a “food sovereignty movement” evolved into programs like the Traditional Foods Project (TFP).

The TFP has provided “modest” funding to AI/AN communities to design their own interventions promoting access to traditional foods, physical activity, and social support. The project began in 2008 with 11 tribes and tribal organizations, and expanded to 17 in 2009.

Recently, the CDC researchers reported on how the TFP was doing, evaluating data the tribal partners collected between 2008 and 2014 in 3 domains: traditional foods, physical activity, and social support. Each partner used various strategies aimed at behavior changes, with unique solutions in each group. Some of their initiatives covered > 1 domain: gardening, for instance, involved physical activity, social support, and traditional foods.

From 82% to 94% of the partners (numbers varied as more communities joined the TFP) reported gardening during summer months; 59% to 82% also gardened during the winter. Many started community gardens, but school gardens had the most participants. In 1 year, 6 communities had school gardens involving 3,017 people. Most of the partners also began focusing on sustainability, using heirloom seeds, for instance. One coordinator took a course to become a Master Composter, balancing traditional ecological knowledge and Western science, leading to “large yields of harvested produce.”

Healthy food outlets increased, reported by 11 of 16 communities in T10, up from 2 of 11 in the first test period. Moreover, by T10, nearly two-thirds of the partners reported that healthy food selections were available at 1 or more venues, including worksites, supermarkets, vending machines, and restaurants.

Most partners reported health education activities for each period, involving nearly 11,000 participants. Storytelling was an important teaching activity, the researchers say. Head Start organizations added physical activities, gardening, and a health education curriculum.

The partners measured changes such as weight loss, improved physical activity, and healthy food choices in 69 of 156 data points recorded during the 10 periods. In most periods, almost half of the partners measured participant change in 1 or more domains. As many as 7,500 participants took part in organized physical activities for 1 partner during 1 period. Involvement in activities peaked in the middle years but leveled off at a median of about 65%.

The researchers also gathered observations from the partners. The program’s impact was visible not only community-wide, but among individuals. One young man who had struggled with substance abuse said he “found himself through connection with the earth” in the community garden. Another participant said, “Food is good medicine.”

A thread in every discussion, the researchers say, was: “Traditional foods have become a way to talk about health.” The way to reclaim health, the partners came to believe, was to reconnect with the land, water, traditional foodways, and “all that they mean.”

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new draft guidance for industry on evaluating the safety of new drugs for type 2 diabetes and removed the “outdated” 12-year-old requirement for standardized cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs).

The new draft guidance, “Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating the Safety of New Drugs for Improving Glycemic Control,” will replace the December 2008 requirement that manufacturers conduct CVOTs to rule out unacceptable cardiovascular safety risk. That move followed concerns raised at the time about the thiazolidinedione class of glucose-lowering drugs.

Since then, “FDA has reviewed the results of several [CVOTs] conducted to meet the December 2008 guidance recommendations. None of the CVOTs to date have identified an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events; some of the CVOTs have instead demonstrated a reduced risk for cardiovascular events,” according to the federal register announcement.

In October 2018, the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted (10 to 9) to continue requiring CVOTs, but most panel members also recommended some changes to them, including requirements for safety data beyond cardiovascular events.

Based on the CVOT results over the years and the panel’s recommendations, “FDA is revisiting the recommendations of the December 2008 guidance and is now proposing an updated approach to evaluating the safety of new drugs and biologics to improve glycemic control.”

“The new draft guidance does not contain the recommendation that sponsors of all new therapies for type 2 diabetes uniformly rule out a specific degree of risk for ischemic cardiovascular adverse outcomes,” the FDA said.

Instead, the draft calls for at least 4000 patient-years of exposure to the new drug in phase 3 trials and inclusion of study participants with comorbid conditions and/or diabetes complications, including at least 500 with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease, 600 with established cardiovascular disease, and at least 600 over the age of 65 years.

The FDA is soliciting stakeholder input on these and other issues, including study duration, subject demographics, specific safety concerns, and event adjudication.

In a statement, Lisa Yanoff, MD, acting director of the Division for Metabolism and Endocrinology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said: “By following previous FDA recommendations, sponsors have shown that new type 2 diabetes drugs do not have excess ischemic cardiovascular risk, which has provided reassuring cardiovascular safety information for millions of diabetes patients. Now, with this proposed approach, we will have broader, valuable safety information for these medications.”

The draft is open for comments for 90 days after March 9, 2020. It is available online, along with a link for submitting comments.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who did not survive hospitalization for COVID-19 in Wuhan were more likely to be older, have comorbidities, and elevated D-dimer, according to the first study to examine risk factors associated with death among adults hospitalized with COVID-19. “Older age, showing signs of sepsis on admission, underlying diseases like high blood pressure and diabetes, and the prolonged use of noninvasive ventilation were important factors in the deaths of these patients,” coauthor Zhibo Liu said in a news release. Abnormal blood clotting was part of the clinical picture too.

Fei Zhou, MD, from the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and colleagues conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study of 191 patients, 137 of whom were discharged and 54 of whom died in the hospital.

The study, published online today in The Lancet, included all adult inpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital who had been discharged or died by January 31 of this year. Severely ill patients in the province were transferred to these hospitals until February 1.

The researchers compared demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data from electronic medical records between survivors and those who succumbed to the disease. The analysis also tested serial samples for viral RNA. Overall, 91 (48%) of the 191 patients had comorbidity. Most common was hypertension (30%), followed by diabetes (19%) and coronary heart disease (8%).

The odds of dying in the hospital increased with age (odds ratio 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.17; per year increase in age), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5.65, 2.61-12.23; P < .0001), and D-dimer level exceeding 1 mcg/L on admission. The SOFA was previously called the “sepsis-related organ failure assessment score” and assesses rate of organ failure in intensive care units. Elevated D-dimer indicates increased risk of abnormal blood clotting, such as deep vein thrombosis.

Nonsurvivors compared with survivors had higher frequencies of respiratory failure (98% vs 36%), sepsis (100%, vs 42%), and secondary infections (50% vs 1%).

The average age of survivors was 52 years compared to 69 for those who died. Liu cited weakening of the immune system and increased inflammation, which damages organs and also promotes viral replication, as explanations for the age effect.

From the time of initial symptoms, median time to discharge from the hospital was 22 days. Average time to death was 18.5 days.

Fever persisted for a median of 12 days among all patients, and cough persisted for a median 19 days; 45% of the survivors were still coughing on discharge. In survivors, shortness of breath improved after 13 days, but persisted until death in the others.

Viral shedding persisted for a median duration of 20 days in survivors, ranging from 8 to 37. The virus (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in nonsurvivors until death. Antiviral treatment did not curtail viral shedding.

But the viral shedding data come with a caveat. “The extended viral shedding noted in our study has important implications for guiding decisions around isolation precautions and antiviral treatment in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection. However, we need to be clear that viral shedding time should not be confused with other self-isolation guidance for people who may have been exposed to COVID-19 but do not have symptoms, as this guidance is based on the incubation time of the virus,” explained colead author Bin Cao.

“Older age, elevated D-dimer levels, and high SOFA score could help clinicians to identify at an early stage those patients with COVID-19 who have poor prognosis. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future,” the researchers conclude.

A limitation in interpreting the findings of the study is that hospitalized patients do not represent the entire infected population. The researchers caution that “the number of deaths does not reflect the true mortality of COVID-19.” They also note that they did not have enough genetic material to accurately assess duration of viral shedding.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, belapectin therapy was safe but did not significantly improve fibrosis or hepatic venous pressure gradient, compared with placebo, according to the results of a multicenter phase 2b study.

After 52 weeks of infusions, the change in hepatic venous pressure gradient did not significantly differ between the 2-mg/kg group (–0.28 mm Hg) and the placebo group (0.10 mm Hg) or between the 8-mg/kg group (–0.25 mm Hg) and the placebo group (P = .1 for both comparisons). Belapectin also did not significantly improve fibrosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, or the frequency of various complications of cirrhosis. “However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient and development of varices,” wrote Naga Chalasani, MD, of Indiana University in Indianapolis and his associates. The findings were published in Gastroenterology.

NASH leads to portal hypertension, variceal bleeding, ascites with bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, and liver-related death and is a leading reason for liver transplantation among women and men. Galectin-3, which is primarily secreted by macrophages, is elevated in patients with NASH and has been linked to the pathophysiology of liver fibrosis in mice. Belapectin (GR-MD-02), a complex carbohydrate that targets and disrupts galectin-3, has been found to reduce liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies.

For this double-blind trial, the researchers randomly assigned 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient at least 6 mm Hg) to receive biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (54 patients), belapectin 8 mg/kg (54 patients), or placebo (54 patients). Patients were treated for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in hepatic venous pressure gradient.

In a post-hoc analysis of the 81 patients who had no esophageal varices at baseline, 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with an average 1.61-mm Hg reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient from baseline (P = .02) and with a reduction in the development of new varices (P = .03).These effects did not extend to subgroups of patients with varices at baseline, clinically significant portal hypertension, or mild portal hypertension. Moreover, 2 mg/kg belapectin did not improve fibrosis, and the higher dose of belapectin (8 mg/kg) met neither the primary endpoint nor the secondary endpoints in the overall cohort or in subgroup analyses. In the subgroup with no varices at baseline, Galectin Technologies is proceeding to initiating a phase 3 clinical trial.

“Interestingly and somewhat unexpectedly, belapectin was associated with an improvement in hepatocyte ballooning,” which “is considered fundamental to the pathogenesis of disease progression in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis,” the researchers wrote. “The significance of such improvement in hepatocyte ballooning in the absence of improvement of other histological components, especially inflammation, is unknown.”

Galectin Therapeutics provided funding. Dr. Chalasani disclosed grant support from Galectin Therapeutics and relevant consulting relationships with NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune (DS Biopharma), and several other pharmaceutical companies. Sixteen coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, of whom eight disclosed consulting relationships, received research funding, or were employed by Galectin.

SOURCE: Chalasani N et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296.

*This story was updated on 3/18/2020.

For patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, belapectin therapy was safe but did not significantly improve fibrosis or hepatic venous pressure gradient, compared with placebo, according to the results of a multicenter phase 2b study.

After 52 weeks of infusions, the change in hepatic venous pressure gradient did not significantly differ between the 2-mg/kg group (–0.28 mm Hg) and the placebo group (0.10 mm Hg) or between the 8-mg/kg group (–0.25 mm Hg) and the placebo group (P = .1 for both comparisons). Belapectin also did not significantly improve fibrosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, or the frequency of various complications of cirrhosis. “However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient and development of varices,” wrote Naga Chalasani, MD, of Indiana University in Indianapolis and his associates. The findings were published in Gastroenterology.

NASH leads to portal hypertension, variceal bleeding, ascites with bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, and liver-related death and is a leading reason for liver transplantation among women and men. Galectin-3, which is primarily secreted by macrophages, is elevated in patients with NASH and has been linked to the pathophysiology of liver fibrosis in mice. Belapectin (GR-MD-02), a complex carbohydrate that targets and disrupts galectin-3, has been found to reduce liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies.

For this double-blind trial, the researchers randomly assigned 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient at least 6 mm Hg) to receive biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (54 patients), belapectin 8 mg/kg (54 patients), or placebo (54 patients). Patients were treated for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in hepatic venous pressure gradient.

In a post-hoc analysis of the 81 patients who had no esophageal varices at baseline, 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with an average 1.61-mm Hg reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient from baseline (P = .02) and with a reduction in the development of new varices (P = .03).These effects did not extend to subgroups of patients with varices at baseline, clinically significant portal hypertension, or mild portal hypertension. Moreover, 2 mg/kg belapectin did not improve fibrosis, and the higher dose of belapectin (8 mg/kg) met neither the primary endpoint nor the secondary endpoints in the overall cohort or in subgroup analyses. In the subgroup with no varices at baseline, Galectin Technologies is proceeding to initiating a phase 3 clinical trial.

“Interestingly and somewhat unexpectedly, belapectin was associated with an improvement in hepatocyte ballooning,” which “is considered fundamental to the pathogenesis of disease progression in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis,” the researchers wrote. “The significance of such improvement in hepatocyte ballooning in the absence of improvement of other histological components, especially inflammation, is unknown.”

Galectin Therapeutics provided funding. Dr. Chalasani disclosed grant support from Galectin Therapeutics and relevant consulting relationships with NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune (DS Biopharma), and several other pharmaceutical companies. Sixteen coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, of whom eight disclosed consulting relationships, received research funding, or were employed by Galectin.

SOURCE: Chalasani N et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296.

*This story was updated on 3/18/2020.

For patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, belapectin therapy was safe but did not significantly improve fibrosis or hepatic venous pressure gradient, compared with placebo, according to the results of a multicenter phase 2b study.

After 52 weeks of infusions, the change in hepatic venous pressure gradient did not significantly differ between the 2-mg/kg group (–0.28 mm Hg) and the placebo group (0.10 mm Hg) or between the 8-mg/kg group (–0.25 mm Hg) and the placebo group (P = .1 for both comparisons). Belapectin also did not significantly improve fibrosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score, or the frequency of various complications of cirrhosis. “However, in a subgroup analysis of patients without esophageal varices, 2 mg/kg belapectin did reduce hepatic venous pressure gradient and development of varices,” wrote Naga Chalasani, MD, of Indiana University in Indianapolis and his associates. The findings were published in Gastroenterology.

NASH leads to portal hypertension, variceal bleeding, ascites with bacterial peritonitis, hepatic encephalopathy, and liver-related death and is a leading reason for liver transplantation among women and men. Galectin-3, which is primarily secreted by macrophages, is elevated in patients with NASH and has been linked to the pathophysiology of liver fibrosis in mice. Belapectin (GR-MD-02), a complex carbohydrate that targets and disrupts galectin-3, has been found to reduce liver fibrosis and portal hypertension in rats and was safe and well tolerated in phase 1 studies.

For this double-blind trial, the researchers randomly assigned 162 patients with NASH, cirrhosis, and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient at least 6 mm Hg) to receive biweekly infusions of belapectin 2 mg/kg (54 patients), belapectin 8 mg/kg (54 patients), or placebo (54 patients). Patients were treated for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in hepatic venous pressure gradient.

In a post-hoc analysis of the 81 patients who had no esophageal varices at baseline, 2 mg/kg belapectin was associated with an average 1.61-mm Hg reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient from baseline (P = .02) and with a reduction in the development of new varices (P = .03).These effects did not extend to subgroups of patients with varices at baseline, clinically significant portal hypertension, or mild portal hypertension. Moreover, 2 mg/kg belapectin did not improve fibrosis, and the higher dose of belapectin (8 mg/kg) met neither the primary endpoint nor the secondary endpoints in the overall cohort or in subgroup analyses. In the subgroup with no varices at baseline, Galectin Technologies is proceeding to initiating a phase 3 clinical trial.

“Interestingly and somewhat unexpectedly, belapectin was associated with an improvement in hepatocyte ballooning,” which “is considered fundamental to the pathogenesis of disease progression in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis,” the researchers wrote. “The significance of such improvement in hepatocyte ballooning in the absence of improvement of other histological components, especially inflammation, is unknown.”

Galectin Therapeutics provided funding. Dr. Chalasani disclosed grant support from Galectin Therapeutics and relevant consulting relationships with NuSirt, AbbVie, Afimmune (DS Biopharma), and several other pharmaceutical companies. Sixteen coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies, of whom eight disclosed consulting relationships, received research funding, or were employed by Galectin.

SOURCE: Chalasani N et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Dec 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.296.

*This story was updated on 3/18/2020.

Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries could see lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin under a new model launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The plan, dubbed the Part D Senior Savings Model, would lower out-of-pocket costs to a maximum of a $35 copay for a 30-day supply throughout the plan year. The agency estimates that beneficiaries enrolling in a plan that is participating in the model would save an average of $446 annually in out-of-pocket costs for insulin.

The maximum copay will apply to all phases of the Part D benefit, including the deductible, initial coverage, and coverage gap phases, according to a fact sheet issued March 11 by the agency. CMS will be proving additional risk corridor protections to Part D plan sponsors to encourage participation in the voluntary model.

The agency has released two requests for application to participate in the model, one for Part D sponsors and one for insulin manufacturers, both of which can be found on a CMS web page providing more details on the program.

The agency said in the fact sheet that, on or around March 20, 2020, it will announce the manufacturers that are participating in the model for the 2021 plan year.

[email protected]

Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries could see lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin under a new model launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The plan, dubbed the Part D Senior Savings Model, would lower out-of-pocket costs to a maximum of a $35 copay for a 30-day supply throughout the plan year. The agency estimates that beneficiaries enrolling in a plan that is participating in the model would save an average of $446 annually in out-of-pocket costs for insulin.

The maximum copay will apply to all phases of the Part D benefit, including the deductible, initial coverage, and coverage gap phases, according to a fact sheet issued March 11 by the agency. CMS will be proving additional risk corridor protections to Part D plan sponsors to encourage participation in the voluntary model.

The agency has released two requests for application to participate in the model, one for Part D sponsors and one for insulin manufacturers, both of which can be found on a CMS web page providing more details on the program.

The agency said in the fact sheet that, on or around March 20, 2020, it will announce the manufacturers that are participating in the model for the 2021 plan year.

[email protected]

Medicare Part D prescription drug plan beneficiaries could see lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin under a new model launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

roobcio/Thinkstock

The plan, dubbed the Part D Senior Savings Model, would lower out-of-pocket costs to a maximum of a $35 copay for a 30-day supply throughout the plan year. The agency estimates that beneficiaries enrolling in a plan that is participating in the model would save an average of $446 annually in out-of-pocket costs for insulin.

The maximum copay will apply to all phases of the Part D benefit, including the deductible, initial coverage, and coverage gap phases, according to a fact sheet issued March 11 by the agency. CMS will be proving additional risk corridor protections to Part D plan sponsors to encourage participation in the voluntary model.

The agency has released two requests for application to participate in the model, one for Part D sponsors and one for insulin manufacturers, both of which can be found on a CMS web page providing more details on the program.

The agency said in the fact sheet that, on or around March 20, 2020, it will announce the manufacturers that are participating in the model for the 2021 plan year.

[email protected]

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

A clinical algorithm developed in Singapore improved glycemic control fourfold among Muslims with diabetes who fast during Ramadan, according to results from a randomized trial.

Ramadan is a challenge for Muslims with diabetes worldwide. Observing the month-long fast requires a dramatic break from normal eating patterns, which includes abstaining from food and liquids, including medications, from dawn to dusk. Not adjusting medications during fasting may harm glycemic control, and though international guidelines have become available in recent years, a large multinational study showed that fewer than 40% of people with diabetes got help from clinicians on medication management during Ramadan (Diabet Med. 2015;32[6]:819-828).

The Fasting Algorithm for Singaporeans With Type 2 Diabetes (FAST), developed and validated in 2018 by Joyce Lee, PharmD, and her colleagues at the National University of Singapore, is a clinical decision-making tool for both clinicians and patients. It involves clinicians engaging in risk-assessment screening of patients and educating patients on self-monitoring of blood glucose timing and technique, hypoglycemia management, nutrition, and Ramadan-related misconceptions. FAST also provides glucose-lowering medication modification guidance for clinicians along with patient self-dose adjustment guidance based on self-monitoring of blood glucose four times a day. The algorithm specifically requires patients to check their blood glucose levels before their sunset meal, two hours after their sunset meal, before their predawn meal, and a fourth time each day of their choice.

For their new study, published March 9 in Annals of Family Medicine, Dr. Lee and colleagues tested the algorithm in a clinical trial in which patients and clinicians were randomized to follow FAST protocols or receive and provide standard care. All patients (n = 97; mean age 59.5 years; 60% female) had glycated hemoglobin of 9.5% or higher, no history of recurrent hypoglycemia, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/min at baseline (before Ramadan). These patients partook in Ramadan fasting and were willing to self-monitor blood glucose during the study. Pregnant women and people taking corticosteroids were excluded.

The trial took place during two different Ramadan cycles during 2017-2018, and the main endpoint was glycemic control pre- and post-Ramadan. Dr. Lee and her colleagues reported that patients in the algorithm arm (n = 46), showed four times the amount of improvement in HbA1c (–0.4%; –4.4 mmol/mol), compared with subjects receiving standard care (–0.1%; P = .049).

Mean fasting blood glucose decreased in the intervention group (–3.6 mg/dL) and increased in the control group (+20.9 mg/dL) over the study period (P = .034). The control group saw more confirmed incidents of minor hypoglycemia than did the intervention group, but these did not reach statistical significance.

“Before this study, the effect of Ramadan fasting on glycemic control was found to be affected by support from health care clinicians,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote in their analysis. “By standardizing diabetes care with the FAST tool, intervention participants showed four times the amount of improvement in glycemic control,” compared with controls. The investigators described the open-label design and the potential for different management practices among the participating clinicians having been used as weaknesses of the study.

In an editorial comment accompanying the article by Dr. Lee and colleagues, Jonathan G. Gabison, MD, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, praised the study as demonstrating “that persons with type 2 diabetes can, with the help of their physicians, engage in safe fasting practices, and they can attain positive health benefits” (Ann Fam Med. 2020;18:98-99). Patients observing the FAST protocol “are less likely to avoid their doctors and have an improved therapeutic relationship with the medical community in their time of spiritual work.” But the study has implications beyond the observant Muslim community, Dr. Gabison argued, as “people with or without diabetes are more frequently engaging in the practice of fasting ... Although a controversial topic in the medical and nutritional community, patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, are increasingly using it as a strategy for weight loss or health benefits.”

While more research is needed, Dr. Gabison wrote, “a protocol to manage diabetes medications safely with intermittent fasting may help keep patients safe while we learn more about the use of these strategies to help combat obesity and diabetes.”

The Singapore Ministry of Education funded Dr. Lee and colleagues’ study. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gabison also reported no conflicts related to his editorial.

SOURCE: Lee et al. Ann Family Med. 2020;18:139-47.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

Rotavirus vaccination was not associated with the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a study of more than 385,000 children published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Previous findings from a number of studies have indicated a possible association between rotavirus and type 1 diabetes, according to Jason M. Glanz, PhD, and colleagues. “Epidemiologic data suggest an association between gastrointestinal infection and incidence of type 1 diabetes in children followed from birth to age 10 years. Given these findings, it is biologically plausible that live, attenuated rotavirus vaccine could either increase or decrease the risk for type 1 diabetes in early childhood,” they wrote.

To examine the association between rotavirus vaccination and the incidence of type 1 diabetes in a cohort of U.S. children, Dr. Glanz, a senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health Research in Aurora, and colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from seven health care organizations that participate in the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

The researchers identified children born between 2006 and 2014 who had continuous enrollment from age 6 weeks to 2 years. They excluded children with a medical contraindication to vaccination or fewer than two well-child visits by age 12 months. They followed children until a type 1 diabetes diagnosis, disenrollment, or Dec. 31, 2017. The researchers adjusted for sex, birth year, mother’s age, birth weight, gestational age, and race or ethnicity.

The cohort included 386,937 children who were followed up a median of 5.4 years for a total person-time follow-up of 2,253,879 years. In all, 386,937 children (93.1%) were fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination; 15,765 (4.1%) were partially exposed to rotavirus vaccination, meaning that they received some, but not all, vaccine doses; and 11,003 (2.8%) were unexposed to rotavirus vaccination but had received all other recommended vaccines.

There were 464 cases of type 1 diabetes in the cohort, with an incidence rate of 20 cases per 100,000 person-years in the fully exposed group, 31.2 cases per 100,000 person-years in the partially exposed group, and 22.4 cases per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes was not significantly different across the rotavirus vaccine–exposure groups. The researchers reported that, compared with children unexposed to rotavirus vaccination, the adjusted hazard ratio for children fully exposed to rotavirus vaccination was 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.72), and for those partially exposed to the vaccination, it was 1.50 (95% CI, 0.81-2.77).

“Since licensure, rotavirus vaccination has been associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to rotavirus infection in the United States and worldwide. ... Although rotavirus vaccination may not prevent type 1 diabetes, these results should provide additional reassurance to the public that rotavirus vaccination can be safely administered to infants,” they wrote.

The limited follow-up duration and relatively small proportion of patients unexposed to rotavirus vaccination are limitations of the study, the authors noted.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the study. Several authors reported having received grants from the CDC. One author received grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and another from pharmaceutical companies not involved in the study.

SOURCE: Glanz JM et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Mar 9. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6324.

A high-risk profile from the urinary biomarker CKD273 was significantly associated with an increased risk of microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes, according to findings from a multicenter European trial.

“Although microalbuminuria is the earliest clinical index of renal damage, histological changes might already be advanced by the time it is detectable. Thus, earlier identification of at-risk individuals is essential to guide targeted preventive therapy,” wrote Nete Tofte, MD, of the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen, and colleagues.

“Increases in urinary albumin to microalbuminuria levels, or higher, are not only strongly associated with progression to more serious clinical endpoints, such as clinically significant loss of renal function and eventually, end-stage kidney disease, but also with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications,” the researchers noted in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

They identified 1,775 adults with type 2 diabetes who had normal albumin levels and preserved renal function at baseline. The average age of the patients was 62 years, and 62% were men. The participants underwent urine proteomics testing via capillary electrophoresis–mass spectrometry analysis to generate a renal risk profile based on 273 peptides (CKD273). On the basis of their CKD273 scores, 216 patients (12%) were designated to the high-risk group, and 1,556 (88%) to the low-risk group.

Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 61 patients (28%) in the high-risk group progressed to microalbuminuria (the primary endpoint), compared with 139 patients (9%) in the low-risk group.

Of the original 216 high-risk patients, 209 were randomized to treatment with 25 mg of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone (102 patients) or placebo (107) to examine whether spironolactone would stall progression to microalbuminuria.

The researchers found, however, that spironolactone did not prevent progression to microalbuminuria. In all, 26 of the 102 patients (25%) patients in the spironolactone group developed microalbuminuria, and 35 of the 107 patients (33%) in the placebo group developed it (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.34; P = .41).

The total number of adverse events was not significantly different between the spironolactone and placebo groups (312 vs. 321, respectively), although more patients in the spironolactone group experienced adverse events that led to drug discontinuation (25 vs. 9, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of a single urine sample for risk stratification; the lower-than-expected number of high-risk patients; not testing spironolactone in the low-risk group; and the fact that microalbuminuria, although an accepted surrogate for diabetic kidney disease, is not approved as such by regulatory agencies, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and prospective design, as well as the additional register-based follow-up that is planned when possible.

In an accompanying editorial, Susanne B. Nicholas, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, reiterated that microalbuminuria cannot be used to track responses to therapy even if it is an acceptable indicator of potential renal damage.

“In fact, regression from microalbuminuria to normoalbuminuria is more likely than progression toward overt proteinuria, [which exposes] a need for a more dependable biomarker for diabetic kidney disease,” she wrote.

However, Dr. Nicholas supported the potential of proteomics as a tool “that could bridge the gap between discovery of diabetic kidney disease – possibly providing a panel, rather than a single or few urinary indicators of structural changes that predate microalbuminuria – and response to therapy, given the promise of targeted therapies for this complex disease.” Additional research into patient selection, comparators to verify findings, and cost containment is needed before proteomics can become part of routine care, she added.

The study was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme. Dr. Tofte had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Nicholas had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Tofte N et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30026-7; Nicholas SB. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30067-X.

A high-risk profile from the urinary biomarker CKD273 was significantly associated with an increased risk of microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes, according to findings from a multicenter European trial.

“Although microalbuminuria is the earliest clinical index of renal damage, histological changes might already be advanced by the time it is detectable. Thus, earlier identification of at-risk individuals is essential to guide targeted preventive therapy,” wrote Nete Tofte, MD, of the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen, and colleagues.

“Increases in urinary albumin to microalbuminuria levels, or higher, are not only strongly associated with progression to more serious clinical endpoints, such as clinically significant loss of renal function and eventually, end-stage kidney disease, but also with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications,” the researchers noted in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

They identified 1,775 adults with type 2 diabetes who had normal albumin levels and preserved renal function at baseline. The average age of the patients was 62 years, and 62% were men. The participants underwent urine proteomics testing via capillary electrophoresis–mass spectrometry analysis to generate a renal risk profile based on 273 peptides (CKD273). On the basis of their CKD273 scores, 216 patients (12%) were designated to the high-risk group, and 1,556 (88%) to the low-risk group.

Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 61 patients (28%) in the high-risk group progressed to microalbuminuria (the primary endpoint), compared with 139 patients (9%) in the low-risk group.

Of the original 216 high-risk patients, 209 were randomized to treatment with 25 mg of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone (102 patients) or placebo (107) to examine whether spironolactone would stall progression to microalbuminuria.

The researchers found, however, that spironolactone did not prevent progression to microalbuminuria. In all, 26 of the 102 patients (25%) patients in the spironolactone group developed microalbuminuria, and 35 of the 107 patients (33%) in the placebo group developed it (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.34; P = .41).

The total number of adverse events was not significantly different between the spironolactone and placebo groups (312 vs. 321, respectively), although more patients in the spironolactone group experienced adverse events that led to drug discontinuation (25 vs. 9, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of a single urine sample for risk stratification; the lower-than-expected number of high-risk patients; not testing spironolactone in the low-risk group; and the fact that microalbuminuria, although an accepted surrogate for diabetic kidney disease, is not approved as such by regulatory agencies, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and prospective design, as well as the additional register-based follow-up that is planned when possible.

In an accompanying editorial, Susanne B. Nicholas, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, reiterated that microalbuminuria cannot be used to track responses to therapy even if it is an acceptable indicator of potential renal damage.

“In fact, regression from microalbuminuria to normoalbuminuria is more likely than progression toward overt proteinuria, [which exposes] a need for a more dependable biomarker for diabetic kidney disease,” she wrote.

However, Dr. Nicholas supported the potential of proteomics as a tool “that could bridge the gap between discovery of diabetic kidney disease – possibly providing a panel, rather than a single or few urinary indicators of structural changes that predate microalbuminuria – and response to therapy, given the promise of targeted therapies for this complex disease.” Additional research into patient selection, comparators to verify findings, and cost containment is needed before proteomics can become part of routine care, she added.

The study was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme. Dr. Tofte had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Nicholas had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Tofte N et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30026-7; Nicholas SB. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30067-X.

A high-risk profile from the urinary biomarker CKD273 was significantly associated with an increased risk of microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes, according to findings from a multicenter European trial.

“Although microalbuminuria is the earliest clinical index of renal damage, histological changes might already be advanced by the time it is detectable. Thus, earlier identification of at-risk individuals is essential to guide targeted preventive therapy,” wrote Nete Tofte, MD, of the Steno Diabetes Center in Copenhagen, and colleagues.

“Increases in urinary albumin to microalbuminuria levels, or higher, are not only strongly associated with progression to more serious clinical endpoints, such as clinically significant loss of renal function and eventually, end-stage kidney disease, but also with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications,” the researchers noted in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

They identified 1,775 adults with type 2 diabetes who had normal albumin levels and preserved renal function at baseline. The average age of the patients was 62 years, and 62% were men. The participants underwent urine proteomics testing via capillary electrophoresis–mass spectrometry analysis to generate a renal risk profile based on 273 peptides (CKD273). On the basis of their CKD273 scores, 216 patients (12%) were designated to the high-risk group, and 1,556 (88%) to the low-risk group.

Over a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 61 patients (28%) in the high-risk group progressed to microalbuminuria (the primary endpoint), compared with 139 patients (9%) in the low-risk group.

Of the original 216 high-risk patients, 209 were randomized to treatment with 25 mg of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone (102 patients) or placebo (107) to examine whether spironolactone would stall progression to microalbuminuria.

The researchers found, however, that spironolactone did not prevent progression to microalbuminuria. In all, 26 of the 102 patients (25%) patients in the spironolactone group developed microalbuminuria, and 35 of the 107 patients (33%) in the placebo group developed it (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.34; P = .41).

The total number of adverse events was not significantly different between the spironolactone and placebo groups (312 vs. 321, respectively), although more patients in the spironolactone group experienced adverse events that led to drug discontinuation (25 vs. 9, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the use of a single urine sample for risk stratification; the lower-than-expected number of high-risk patients; not testing spironolactone in the low-risk group; and the fact that microalbuminuria, although an accepted surrogate for diabetic kidney disease, is not approved as such by regulatory agencies, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and prospective design, as well as the additional register-based follow-up that is planned when possible.

In an accompanying editorial, Susanne B. Nicholas, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, reiterated that microalbuminuria cannot be used to track responses to therapy even if it is an acceptable indicator of potential renal damage.

“In fact, regression from microalbuminuria to normoalbuminuria is more likely than progression toward overt proteinuria, [which exposes] a need for a more dependable biomarker for diabetic kidney disease,” she wrote.

However, Dr. Nicholas supported the potential of proteomics as a tool “that could bridge the gap between discovery of diabetic kidney disease – possibly providing a panel, rather than a single or few urinary indicators of structural changes that predate microalbuminuria – and response to therapy, given the promise of targeted therapies for this complex disease.” Additional research into patient selection, comparators to verify findings, and cost containment is needed before proteomics can become part of routine care, she added.

The study was supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme. Dr. Tofte had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several other authors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Nicholas had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Tofte N et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30026-7; Nicholas SB. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30067-X.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery experienced higher rates of diabetes remission, improved glycemic control, greater weight loss, and fewer diabetes relapse events, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy, according to findings from nearly 10,000 patients.

“Remission of type 2 diabetes is common after bariatric surgery and may reduce risk for subsequent microvascular and macrovascular disease,” but it is not clear which of the two most common procedures, RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy, has better long-term diabetes and weight outcomes, wrote Kathleen M. McTigue, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues in JAMA Surgery.

To examine the effectiveness of the two procedures, the researchers identified 9,710 adults with type 2 diabetes who were part of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network Bariatric Study. They compared diabetes outcomes for up to 5 years after surgery for 6,233 patients who underwent RYGB and 3,477 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The average age of the patients was 50 years, and 73% were women. The average preoperative body mass index was 49 kg/m².

Overall, 6,141 patients experienced diabetes remission. The estimated adjusted cumulative remission rates for the RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy groups after 1 year were 59% and 56%, respectively, and after 5 years were 86% and 84%.

Weight loss was significantly greater in RYGB patients, compared with those who had the sleeve gastrectomy, with average differences in percentage points of 6.3 at 1 year and 8.1 at year 5. RYGB patients also showed significantly better long-term glycemic control, compared with sleeve gastrectomy patients. At 5 years, hemoglobin A_1c levels were 0.80 percentage points below baseline in the RYGB group, and 0.35 percentage points below baseline in the sleeve gastrectomy group.

In addition, after 1 year, diabetes relapse rates in the RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy groups were 8% and 11%, respectively, and 33% and 42% after 5 years.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design of the study and the potential for confounding and coding inaccuracies, the researchers noted, adding that future studies should address the impact of weight loss on diabetes remission and relapse in bariatric surgery patients.

They also noted that their results were in contrast to findings in previous studies that established no significant differences in outcomes between the procedures, but emphasized that most previous studies were smaller and controlled and that outcome differences may be greater in clinical practice.

“For patients, clinicians, and policy makers to make informed decisions about which procedure is best suited to patients’ personal situations, additional data are needed to understand the adverse event profile of the procedures, as well as patient values regarding procedure choice and the role of surgery relative to other aspects of lifelong weight management,” they concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Natalie Liu, MD, and Luke M. Funk, MD, of the department of surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis made an important contribution to the existing literature, despite its limitations.

“It included long-term electronic health record data from a large cohort of U.S. patients who had bariatric surgery in a real-world setting,” they wrote, adding that, although the remission rates were high, the relapse rate in both treatment groups deserved further study.

Dr. Liu and Dr. Funk emphasized that the overall high remission rates for either surgery, compared with lifestyle interventions, suggest the need for continued advocacy for better insurance coverage of, and access to, bariatric surgery procedures for patients with type 2 diabetes, notably those with class 1 obesity.

The study was conducted using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, which was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. McTigue and Dr. Liu had reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Funk disclosed a Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Career Development Award, and grants from the VA, National Institutes of Health, and American College of Surgeons.

SOURCES: McTigue KM et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0087; Lui N, Funk LM. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0088.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery experienced higher rates of diabetes remission, improved glycemic control, greater weight loss, and fewer diabetes relapse events, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy, according to findings from nearly 10,000 patients.

“Remission of type 2 diabetes is common after bariatric surgery and may reduce risk for subsequent microvascular and macrovascular disease,” but it is not clear which of the two most common procedures, RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy, has better long-term diabetes and weight outcomes, wrote Kathleen M. McTigue, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues in JAMA Surgery.

To examine the effectiveness of the two procedures, the researchers identified 9,710 adults with type 2 diabetes who were part of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network Bariatric Study. They compared diabetes outcomes for up to 5 years after surgery for 6,233 patients who underwent RYGB and 3,477 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The average age of the patients was 50 years, and 73% were women. The average preoperative body mass index was 49 kg/m².

Overall, 6,141 patients experienced diabetes remission. The estimated adjusted cumulative remission rates for the RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy groups after 1 year were 59% and 56%, respectively, and after 5 years were 86% and 84%.

Weight loss was significantly greater in RYGB patients, compared with those who had the sleeve gastrectomy, with average differences in percentage points of 6.3 at 1 year and 8.1 at year 5. RYGB patients also showed significantly better long-term glycemic control, compared with sleeve gastrectomy patients. At 5 years, hemoglobin A_1c levels were 0.80 percentage points below baseline in the RYGB group, and 0.35 percentage points below baseline in the sleeve gastrectomy group.

In addition, after 1 year, diabetes relapse rates in the RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy groups were 8% and 11%, respectively, and 33% and 42% after 5 years.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design of the study and the potential for confounding and coding inaccuracies, the researchers noted, adding that future studies should address the impact of weight loss on diabetes remission and relapse in bariatric surgery patients.

They also noted that their results were in contrast to findings in previous studies that established no significant differences in outcomes between the procedures, but emphasized that most previous studies were smaller and controlled and that outcome differences may be greater in clinical practice.

“For patients, clinicians, and policy makers to make informed decisions about which procedure is best suited to patients’ personal situations, additional data are needed to understand the adverse event profile of the procedures, as well as patient values regarding procedure choice and the role of surgery relative to other aspects of lifelong weight management,” they concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Natalie Liu, MD, and Luke M. Funk, MD, of the department of surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis made an important contribution to the existing literature, despite its limitations.

“It included long-term electronic health record data from a large cohort of U.S. patients who had bariatric surgery in a real-world setting,” they wrote, adding that, although the remission rates were high, the relapse rate in both treatment groups deserved further study.

Dr. Liu and Dr. Funk emphasized that the overall high remission rates for either surgery, compared with lifestyle interventions, suggest the need for continued advocacy for better insurance coverage of, and access to, bariatric surgery procedures for patients with type 2 diabetes, notably those with class 1 obesity.

The study was conducted using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, which was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. McTigue and Dr. Liu had reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Funk disclosed a Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Career Development Award, and grants from the VA, National Institutes of Health, and American College of Surgeons.

SOURCES: McTigue KM et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0087; Lui N, Funk LM. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0088.

Patients with type 2 diabetes who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery experienced higher rates of diabetes remission, improved glycemic control, greater weight loss, and fewer diabetes relapse events, compared with those who had sleeve gastrectomy, according to findings from nearly 10,000 patients.

“Remission of type 2 diabetes is common after bariatric surgery and may reduce risk for subsequent microvascular and macrovascular disease,” but it is not clear which of the two most common procedures, RYGB or sleeve gastrectomy, has better long-term diabetes and weight outcomes, wrote Kathleen M. McTigue, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues in JAMA Surgery.

To examine the effectiveness of the two procedures, the researchers identified 9,710 adults with type 2 diabetes who were part of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network Bariatric Study. They compared diabetes outcomes for up to 5 years after surgery for 6,233 patients who underwent RYGB and 3,477 who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. The average age of the patients was 50 years, and 73% were women. The average preoperative body mass index was 49 kg/m².

Overall, 6,141 patients experienced diabetes remission. The estimated adjusted cumulative remission rates for the RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy groups after 1 year were 59% and 56%, respectively, and after 5 years were 86% and 84%.

Weight loss was significantly greater in RYGB patients, compared with those who had the sleeve gastrectomy, with average differences in percentage points of 6.3 at 1 year and 8.1 at year 5. RYGB patients also showed significantly better long-term glycemic control, compared with sleeve gastrectomy patients. At 5 years, hemoglobin A_1c levels were 0.80 percentage points below baseline in the RYGB group, and 0.35 percentage points below baseline in the sleeve gastrectomy group.

In addition, after 1 year, diabetes relapse rates in the RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy groups were 8% and 11%, respectively, and 33% and 42% after 5 years.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design of the study and the potential for confounding and coding inaccuracies, the researchers noted, adding that future studies should address the impact of weight loss on diabetes remission and relapse in bariatric surgery patients.

They also noted that their results were in contrast to findings in previous studies that established no significant differences in outcomes between the procedures, but emphasized that most previous studies were smaller and controlled and that outcome differences may be greater in clinical practice.

“For patients, clinicians, and policy makers to make informed decisions about which procedure is best suited to patients’ personal situations, additional data are needed to understand the adverse event profile of the procedures, as well as patient values regarding procedure choice and the role of surgery relative to other aspects of lifelong weight management,” they concluded.

In an accompanying commentary, Natalie Liu, MD, and Luke M. Funk, MD, of the department of surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis made an important contribution to the existing literature, despite its limitations.

“It included long-term electronic health record data from a large cohort of U.S. patients who had bariatric surgery in a real-world setting,” they wrote, adding that, although the remission rates were high, the relapse rate in both treatment groups deserved further study.

Dr. Liu and Dr. Funk emphasized that the overall high remission rates for either surgery, compared with lifestyle interventions, suggest the need for continued advocacy for better insurance coverage of, and access to, bariatric surgery procedures for patients with type 2 diabetes, notably those with class 1 obesity.

The study was conducted using the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, which was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. McTigue and Dr. Liu had reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Funk disclosed a Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Career Development Award, and grants from the VA, National Institutes of Health, and American College of Surgeons.

SOURCES: McTigue KM et al. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0087; Lui N, Funk LM. JAMA Surg. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.0088.