Diabetes

Through the years, I have had the privilege of educating clinicians about scientific advances in diabetes care. Prior to displaying the first slide of my presentation, I ask the audience, “How many of you have seen a ‘noncompliant’ patient with diabetes within the past month?” Without fail, 99% of the attendees will raise their hand and start laughing, as if to say, “Well, of course they’re noncompliant. They just don’t get it! How incompetent can these people be?”

Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a compliment will do their best to remain adherent to their medication regimen.

Blaming patients for failing to achieve metabolic control is inappropriate and misguided. How many physicians would be able or willing to monitor their blood glucose levels 4 times a day? Based on the premeal glucose level, how many physicians know how much insulin to inject in order to keep the postprandial excursions below 180 mg/dL? How many would remember to take 8 other medications daily without missing a dose? And how many physicians exercise daily; have actually looked at their feet in the past month; and have gained no weight in the past year?

Diabetes self-management is time-­consuming and difficult for many patients, especially those with health illiteracy, ­financial restraints, or social barriers. Any patient who presents to the doctor is, in fact, “compliant.” These individuals expect to receive the safest and most effective treatments for their diabetes while learning as much as possible about lifestyle and behavioral interventions.

I challenge each of you to ask your patients: “What concerns you the most about having diabetes?” Initially, patients will express guilt and remorse about having diabetes. They will hang their heads in shame, admit to not going to the gym as often as they could, and promise to eat smaller portions. They will then look you in the eye and say, “I am worried about losing my eye, my leg, and my kidney to this life-threatening disease. I’m scared I won’t be able to see my daughter walk down the aisle at her wedding or my son graduate from college.”

These patients are terrified because they are unfamiliar with the advances in clinical science that aid our ability to improve the lives of all patients with diabetes. After hearing patients’ concerns about dying prematurely or losing an extremity to diabetes, I assure them that, “Nothing is going to happen to you on my watch. You are safe with me, and I will always have your back.” This level of trust is vitally important to the patient as well as to the treating physician. We all want our patients to achieve treatment success, just as any teacher would want their students to excel and graduate to the next grade level. Diabetes cannot be cured, yet we, as physicians, are able to heal with reassurance and expert guidance.

So, how do we help our patients achieve better adherence to their chronic disease state interventions? Here are 9 techniques that I have learned in my years helping patients manage their diabetes (all of which are more broadly applicable to any chronic disease state):

1. Explain the disease state you are comanaging with the patient to the best of your ability. The more the patient understands, the easier your job as the “drug police” becomes.
2. Remind the patient that he/she is the captain of the disease management team. You, the physician, serve as the personal coach. You can help the patient win the game, but he/she is ultimately responsible for achieving successful metabolic targets.
3. Explain the risks, benefits, and any expected adverse effects that are likely to occur. Do this prior to initiating any medication.
4. Discuss when metabolic change might be expected after initiating a given medication. Patients who observe rapid improvement in their glucose levels will be encouraged to adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen.
5. Make certain that any and all screening tests are performed prior to initiating a medication. For example, renal function should be assessed prior to beginning most diabetes medications.
6. Use shared decision-making to negotiate acceptable metabolic targets with each patient. Discuss the urgency and importance of achieving these goals.
7. Assess the A1C reduction from baseline at 4 weeks after therapy initiation, rather than at 3 months. About 50% of the total A1C is reflective of the preceding 4 weeks of treatment.¹ Thus, if the baseline A1C drops from 8.2% to 7.8%, the patient is moving in the right direction. However, if the A1C increases from 8.2% to 8.5%, the patient is not taking the prescribed medications.
8. Recommend that the patient use a continuous glucose monitor; this newer technology is now readily available for patients who are covered by private insurance or Medicare. These devices allow patients to observe their glucose levels every 5 minutes of every day without fingersticks and actually cost less than self-­monitoring one’s blood glucose.
9. Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a powerful compliment, such as “I am so very proud of your efforts at improving your diabetes control,” will do their absolute best to remain adherent to their prescribed medication regimen. The response might be different if a patient is told, “Once again, your blood sugars are too high. At this rate, you are probably going to die, just like your father did 20 years ago. Now come back in 6 months and show me what you’re ­really made of!”

With more than 30 million Americans living with diabetes and another 84 million with prediabetes, the burden of preventive and intensive care lies squarely with family physicians.² Rather than complain about our patients’ lack of metabolic control, we should provide them with the knowledge, skills, tools, and encouragement that they need to become successful diabetes self-managers.

Through the years, I have had the privilege of educating clinicians about scientific advances in diabetes care. Prior to displaying the first slide of my presentation, I ask the audience, “How many of you have seen a ‘noncompliant’ patient with diabetes within the past month?” Without fail, 99% of the attendees will raise their hand and start laughing, as if to say, “Well, of course they’re noncompliant. They just don’t get it! How incompetent can these people be?”

Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a compliment will do their best to remain adherent to their medication regimen.

Blaming patients for failing to achieve metabolic control is inappropriate and misguided. How many physicians would be able or willing to monitor their blood glucose levels 4 times a day? Based on the premeal glucose level, how many physicians know how much insulin to inject in order to keep the postprandial excursions below 180 mg/dL? How many would remember to take 8 other medications daily without missing a dose? And how many physicians exercise daily; have actually looked at their feet in the past month; and have gained no weight in the past year?

Diabetes self-management is time-­consuming and difficult for many patients, especially those with health illiteracy, ­financial restraints, or social barriers. Any patient who presents to the doctor is, in fact, “compliant.” These individuals expect to receive the safest and most effective treatments for their diabetes while learning as much as possible about lifestyle and behavioral interventions.

I challenge each of you to ask your patients: “What concerns you the most about having diabetes?” Initially, patients will express guilt and remorse about having diabetes. They will hang their heads in shame, admit to not going to the gym as often as they could, and promise to eat smaller portions. They will then look you in the eye and say, “I am worried about losing my eye, my leg, and my kidney to this life-threatening disease. I’m scared I won’t be able to see my daughter walk down the aisle at her wedding or my son graduate from college.”

These patients are terrified because they are unfamiliar with the advances in clinical science that aid our ability to improve the lives of all patients with diabetes. After hearing patients’ concerns about dying prematurely or losing an extremity to diabetes, I assure them that, “Nothing is going to happen to you on my watch. You are safe with me, and I will always have your back.” This level of trust is vitally important to the patient as well as to the treating physician. We all want our patients to achieve treatment success, just as any teacher would want their students to excel and graduate to the next grade level. Diabetes cannot be cured, yet we, as physicians, are able to heal with reassurance and expert guidance.

So, how do we help our patients achieve better adherence to their chronic disease state interventions? Here are 9 techniques that I have learned in my years helping patients manage their diabetes (all of which are more broadly applicable to any chronic disease state):

1. Explain the disease state you are comanaging with the patient to the best of your ability. The more the patient understands, the easier your job as the “drug police” becomes.
2. Remind the patient that he/she is the captain of the disease management team. You, the physician, serve as the personal coach. You can help the patient win the game, but he/she is ultimately responsible for achieving successful metabolic targets.
3. Explain the risks, benefits, and any expected adverse effects that are likely to occur. Do this prior to initiating any medication.
4. Discuss when metabolic change might be expected after initiating a given medication. Patients who observe rapid improvement in their glucose levels will be encouraged to adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen.
5. Make certain that any and all screening tests are performed prior to initiating a medication. For example, renal function should be assessed prior to beginning most diabetes medications.
6. Use shared decision-making to negotiate acceptable metabolic targets with each patient. Discuss the urgency and importance of achieving these goals.
7. Assess the A1C reduction from baseline at 4 weeks after therapy initiation, rather than at 3 months. About 50% of the total A1C is reflective of the preceding 4 weeks of treatment.¹ Thus, if the baseline A1C drops from 8.2% to 7.8%, the patient is moving in the right direction. However, if the A1C increases from 8.2% to 8.5%, the patient is not taking the prescribed medications.
8. Recommend that the patient use a continuous glucose monitor; this newer technology is now readily available for patients who are covered by private insurance or Medicare. These devices allow patients to observe their glucose levels every 5 minutes of every day without fingersticks and actually cost less than self-­monitoring one’s blood glucose.
9. Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a powerful compliment, such as “I am so very proud of your efforts at improving your diabetes control,” will do their absolute best to remain adherent to their prescribed medication regimen. The response might be different if a patient is told, “Once again, your blood sugars are too high. At this rate, you are probably going to die, just like your father did 20 years ago. Now come back in 6 months and show me what you’re ­really made of!”

With more than 30 million Americans living with diabetes and another 84 million with prediabetes, the burden of preventive and intensive care lies squarely with family physicians.² Rather than complain about our patients’ lack of metabolic control, we should provide them with the knowledge, skills, tools, and encouragement that they need to become successful diabetes self-managers.

Through the years, I have had the privilege of educating clinicians about scientific advances in diabetes care. Prior to displaying the first slide of my presentation, I ask the audience, “How many of you have seen a ‘noncompliant’ patient with diabetes within the past month?” Without fail, 99% of the attendees will raise their hand and start laughing, as if to say, “Well, of course they’re noncompliant. They just don’t get it! How incompetent can these people be?”

Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a compliment will do their best to remain adherent to their medication regimen.

Blaming patients for failing to achieve metabolic control is inappropriate and misguided. How many physicians would be able or willing to monitor their blood glucose levels 4 times a day? Based on the premeal glucose level, how many physicians know how much insulin to inject in order to keep the postprandial excursions below 180 mg/dL? How many would remember to take 8 other medications daily without missing a dose? And how many physicians exercise daily; have actually looked at their feet in the past month; and have gained no weight in the past year?

Diabetes self-management is time-­consuming and difficult for many patients, especially those with health illiteracy, ­financial restraints, or social barriers. Any patient who presents to the doctor is, in fact, “compliant.” These individuals expect to receive the safest and most effective treatments for their diabetes while learning as much as possible about lifestyle and behavioral interventions.

I challenge each of you to ask your patients: “What concerns you the most about having diabetes?” Initially, patients will express guilt and remorse about having diabetes. They will hang their heads in shame, admit to not going to the gym as often as they could, and promise to eat smaller portions. They will then look you in the eye and say, “I am worried about losing my eye, my leg, and my kidney to this life-threatening disease. I’m scared I won’t be able to see my daughter walk down the aisle at her wedding or my son graduate from college.”

These patients are terrified because they are unfamiliar with the advances in clinical science that aid our ability to improve the lives of all patients with diabetes. After hearing patients’ concerns about dying prematurely or losing an extremity to diabetes, I assure them that, “Nothing is going to happen to you on my watch. You are safe with me, and I will always have your back.” This level of trust is vitally important to the patient as well as to the treating physician. We all want our patients to achieve treatment success, just as any teacher would want their students to excel and graduate to the next grade level. Diabetes cannot be cured, yet we, as physicians, are able to heal with reassurance and expert guidance.

So, how do we help our patients achieve better adherence to their chronic disease state interventions? Here are 9 techniques that I have learned in my years helping patients manage their diabetes (all of which are more broadly applicable to any chronic disease state):

1. Explain the disease state you are comanaging with the patient to the best of your ability. The more the patient understands, the easier your job as the “drug police” becomes.
2. Remind the patient that he/she is the captain of the disease management team. You, the physician, serve as the personal coach. You can help the patient win the game, but he/she is ultimately responsible for achieving successful metabolic targets.
3. Explain the risks, benefits, and any expected adverse effects that are likely to occur. Do this prior to initiating any medication.
4. Discuss when metabolic change might be expected after initiating a given medication. Patients who observe rapid improvement in their glucose levels will be encouraged to adhere to their prescribed treatment regimen.
5. Make certain that any and all screening tests are performed prior to initiating a medication. For example, renal function should be assessed prior to beginning most diabetes medications.
6. Use shared decision-making to negotiate acceptable metabolic targets with each patient. Discuss the urgency and importance of achieving these goals.
7. Assess the A1C reduction from baseline at 4 weeks after therapy initiation, rather than at 3 months. About 50% of the total A1C is reflective of the preceding 4 weeks of treatment.¹ Thus, if the baseline A1C drops from 8.2% to 7.8%, the patient is moving in the right direction. However, if the A1C increases from 8.2% to 8.5%, the patient is not taking the prescribed medications.
8. Recommend that the patient use a continuous glucose monitor; this newer technology is now readily available for patients who are covered by private insurance or Medicare. These devices allow patients to observe their glucose levels every 5 minutes of every day without fingersticks and actually cost less than self-­monitoring one’s blood glucose.
9. Find a reason to praise the patient at each visit. Patients who receive a powerful compliment, such as “I am so very proud of your efforts at improving your diabetes control,” will do their absolute best to remain adherent to their prescribed medication regimen. The response might be different if a patient is told, “Once again, your blood sugars are too high. At this rate, you are probably going to die, just like your father did 20 years ago. Now come back in 6 months and show me what you’re ­really made of!”

With more than 30 million Americans living with diabetes and another 84 million with prediabetes, the burden of preventive and intensive care lies squarely with family physicians.² Rather than complain about our patients’ lack of metabolic control, we should provide them with the knowledge, skills, tools, and encouragement that they need to become successful diabetes self-managers.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2012 systematic review of 21 RCTs examined the effect of group-based diabetes education on HbA1c in 2833 adults with T2DM.¹ Intervention groups participated in at least 1 group session lasting an hour led by a health professional or team (eg, physician, nurse, diabetes educator); controls received usual care. Most trials involved 6 to 20 hours of group-based education delivered over 1 to 10 months, although some trials continued the intervention for as long as 24 months. The mean HbA1c at baseline across all patients was 8.23%.

Professional-led group visitsimprove HbA1c

Group education resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c compared with controls at 6 months (13 trials; 1883 patients; mean difference [MD]=−0.44%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.69 to −0.19), 12 months (11 studies; 1503 patients; MD=−0.46%; 95% CI, −0.74 to −0.18), and 24 months (3 studies; 397 patients; MD=−0.87%; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.49). The trials had high heterogeneity, except for the 3 trials with a 24-month end-point (I² = 0). Most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

A larger 2017 meta-analysis enrolling 8533 adults with T2DM came to similar conclusions, although it included a small number of nonrandomized trials (40 RCTs, 3 cluster RCTs, and 4 controlled clinical trials).² Thirteen of the RCTs overlapped with the previously described systematic review.¹ Interventions had to include at least 1 group session with 4 or more adult patients lasting at least 1 hour. In most studies, interventions continued between 4 and 12 months, although some ran 60 months. Controls received usual care. The mean HbA1c at baseline across all patients was 8.3%.

Group-based education compared with controls reduced HbA1c at 6 to 10 months (30 trials, N not given; MD=−0.3%; 95% CI, −0.48 to −0.15), 12 to 14 months (27 trials, N not given; MD=−0.3%; 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.17), and 36 to 48 months (5 trials, N not given; MD=−0.9%; 95% CI, −1.52 to −0.34). In a subgroup analysis, peer-led group visits had no effect (5 trials, 1066 patients; MD=−0.02%; 95% CI, −0.12 to 0.16).

Patients on oral agents alone showed a larger benefit than patients using insulin (38 trials, 5871 patients; −0.81 vs −0.19; P < .0001). Authors of the meta-analysis classified most studies as having a moderate to high risk of bias, with only 4 having low risk.

Duration of intervention: Longer is better for HbA1c values

Another systematic review analyzed 13 RCTs with 4652 patients 16 years and older with T2DM or type 1 diabetes to assess the effect of group visits on HbA1c.³ The review excluded studies that didn’t include a health care provider who could prescribe, diagnose, assess, and refer patients when appropriate.

Group visits led by health professionals or teams improve glycosylated hemoglobin by 0.3% to 0.9% over usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Most interventions ran 3 to 12 months, although one lasted 36 months. (Two RCTs overlapped with the 2012 review, and 2 others with the 2017 review.) Group medical visits resulted in a significant decrease in HbA1c at the end of the intervention period (MD=−0.46%; 95% CI, −0.80 to −0.13) compared with controls. A meta-regression analysis suggested that ongoing treatment (for as long as 3 years) decreased HbA1c more than a shorter treatment duration (by 0.25% per year of treatment), whereas the frequency of treatments didn’t alter the effect. Overall, the trials were heterogenous and most had a high risk of bias.

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline for the management of T2DM in adults calls group education ­programs “the preferred option” for diabetes education, suggesting that clinicians reserve individual education for patients unable or unwilling to participate in group programs.⁴

The 2017 diabetes self-management education and support policy endorsed by the American Diabetes Association recommends using interprofessional teams and “creative solutions” to increase patient engagement and endorses group meetings as an effective option for patients who choose them.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Moderate-quality evidence demonstrates that group visits can significantly reduce HbA1c levels. We should consider them for our patients with diabetes who are willing to attend group sessions.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2012 systematic review of 21 RCTs examined the effect of group-based diabetes education on HbA1c in 2833 adults with T2DM.¹ Intervention groups participated in at least 1 group session lasting an hour led by a health professional or team (eg, physician, nurse, diabetes educator); controls received usual care. Most trials involved 6 to 20 hours of group-based education delivered over 1 to 10 months, although some trials continued the intervention for as long as 24 months. The mean HbA1c at baseline across all patients was 8.23%.

Professional-led group visitsimprove HbA1c

Group education resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c compared with controls at 6 months (13 trials; 1883 patients; mean difference [MD]=−0.44%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.69 to −0.19), 12 months (11 studies; 1503 patients; MD=−0.46%; 95% CI, −0.74 to −0.18), and 24 months (3 studies; 397 patients; MD=−0.87%; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.49). The trials had high heterogeneity, except for the 3 trials with a 24-month end-point (I² = 0). Most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

A larger 2017 meta-analysis enrolling 8533 adults with T2DM came to similar conclusions, although it included a small number of nonrandomized trials (40 RCTs, 3 cluster RCTs, and 4 controlled clinical trials).² Thirteen of the RCTs overlapped with the previously described systematic review.¹ Interventions had to include at least 1 group session with 4 or more adult patients lasting at least 1 hour. In most studies, interventions continued between 4 and 12 months, although some ran 60 months. Controls received usual care. The mean HbA1c at baseline across all patients was 8.3%.

Group-based education compared with controls reduced HbA1c at 6 to 10 months (30 trials, N not given; MD=−0.3%; 95% CI, −0.48 to −0.15), 12 to 14 months (27 trials, N not given; MD=−0.3%; 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.17), and 36 to 48 months (5 trials, N not given; MD=−0.9%; 95% CI, −1.52 to −0.34). In a subgroup analysis, peer-led group visits had no effect (5 trials, 1066 patients; MD=−0.02%; 95% CI, −0.12 to 0.16).

Patients on oral agents alone showed a larger benefit than patients using insulin (38 trials, 5871 patients; −0.81 vs −0.19; P < .0001). Authors of the meta-analysis classified most studies as having a moderate to high risk of bias, with only 4 having low risk.

Duration of intervention: Longer is better for HbA1c values

Another systematic review analyzed 13 RCTs with 4652 patients 16 years and older with T2DM or type 1 diabetes to assess the effect of group visits on HbA1c.³ The review excluded studies that didn’t include a health care provider who could prescribe, diagnose, assess, and refer patients when appropriate.

Group visits led by health professionals or teams improve glycosylated hemoglobin by 0.3% to 0.9% over usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Most interventions ran 3 to 12 months, although one lasted 36 months. (Two RCTs overlapped with the 2012 review, and 2 others with the 2017 review.) Group medical visits resulted in a significant decrease in HbA1c at the end of the intervention period (MD=−0.46%; 95% CI, −0.80 to −0.13) compared with controls. A meta-regression analysis suggested that ongoing treatment (for as long as 3 years) decreased HbA1c more than a shorter treatment duration (by 0.25% per year of treatment), whereas the frequency of treatments didn’t alter the effect. Overall, the trials were heterogenous and most had a high risk of bias.

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline for the management of T2DM in adults calls group education ­programs “the preferred option” for diabetes education, suggesting that clinicians reserve individual education for patients unable or unwilling to participate in group programs.⁴

The 2017 diabetes self-management education and support policy endorsed by the American Diabetes Association recommends using interprofessional teams and “creative solutions” to increase patient engagement and endorses group meetings as an effective option for patients who choose them.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Moderate-quality evidence demonstrates that group visits can significantly reduce HbA1c levels. We should consider them for our patients with diabetes who are willing to attend group sessions.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2012 systematic review of 21 RCTs examined the effect of group-based diabetes education on HbA1c in 2833 adults with T2DM.¹ Intervention groups participated in at least 1 group session lasting an hour led by a health professional or team (eg, physician, nurse, diabetes educator); controls received usual care. Most trials involved 6 to 20 hours of group-based education delivered over 1 to 10 months, although some trials continued the intervention for as long as 24 months. The mean HbA1c at baseline across all patients was 8.23%.

Professional-led group visitsimprove HbA1c

Group education resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c compared with controls at 6 months (13 trials; 1883 patients; mean difference [MD]=−0.44%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.69 to −0.19), 12 months (11 studies; 1503 patients; MD=−0.46%; 95% CI, −0.74 to −0.18), and 24 months (3 studies; 397 patients; MD=−0.87%; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.49). The trials had high heterogeneity, except for the 3 trials with a 24-month end-point (I² = 0). Most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

A larger 2017 meta-analysis enrolling 8533 adults with T2DM came to similar conclusions, although it included a small number of nonrandomized trials (40 RCTs, 3 cluster RCTs, and 4 controlled clinical trials).² Thirteen of the RCTs overlapped with the previously described systematic review.¹ Interventions had to include at least 1 group session with 4 or more adult patients lasting at least 1 hour. In most studies, interventions continued between 4 and 12 months, although some ran 60 months. Controls received usual care. The mean HbA1c at baseline across all patients was 8.3%.

Group-based education compared with controls reduced HbA1c at 6 to 10 months (30 trials, N not given; MD=−0.3%; 95% CI, −0.48 to −0.15), 12 to 14 months (27 trials, N not given; MD=−0.3%; 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.17), and 36 to 48 months (5 trials, N not given; MD=−0.9%; 95% CI, −1.52 to −0.34). In a subgroup analysis, peer-led group visits had no effect (5 trials, 1066 patients; MD=−0.02%; 95% CI, −0.12 to 0.16).

Patients on oral agents alone showed a larger benefit than patients using insulin (38 trials, 5871 patients; −0.81 vs −0.19; P < .0001). Authors of the meta-analysis classified most studies as having a moderate to high risk of bias, with only 4 having low risk.

Duration of intervention: Longer is better for HbA1c values

Another systematic review analyzed 13 RCTs with 4652 patients 16 years and older with T2DM or type 1 diabetes to assess the effect of group visits on HbA1c.³ The review excluded studies that didn’t include a health care provider who could prescribe, diagnose, assess, and refer patients when appropriate.

Group visits led by health professionals or teams improve glycosylated hemoglobin by 0.3% to 0.9% over usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Most interventions ran 3 to 12 months, although one lasted 36 months. (Two RCTs overlapped with the 2012 review, and 2 others with the 2017 review.) Group medical visits resulted in a significant decrease in HbA1c at the end of the intervention period (MD=−0.46%; 95% CI, −0.80 to −0.13) compared with controls. A meta-regression analysis suggested that ongoing treatment (for as long as 3 years) decreased HbA1c more than a shorter treatment duration (by 0.25% per year of treatment), whereas the frequency of treatments didn’t alter the effect. Overall, the trials were heterogenous and most had a high risk of bias.

Continue to: RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline for the management of T2DM in adults calls group education ­programs “the preferred option” for diabetes education, suggesting that clinicians reserve individual education for patients unable or unwilling to participate in group programs.⁴

The 2017 diabetes self-management education and support policy endorsed by the American Diabetes Association recommends using interprofessional teams and “creative solutions” to increase patient engagement and endorses group meetings as an effective option for patients who choose them.⁵

Editor’s takeaway

Moderate-quality evidence demonstrates that group visits can significantly reduce HbA1c levels. We should consider them for our patients with diabetes who are willing to attend group sessions.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a triple-combination tablet (Trijardy XR), comprising empagliflozin (Jardiance), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and extended-release metformin hydrochloride, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Trijardy XR will be available in four different dosages and is indicated as a once-daily treatment, together with diet and exercise, for adults who are already on treatment for type 2 disease but require additional agents to attain healthy hemoglobin A_1c targets, according to a statement released by Eli Lilly, which will market the newly approved treatment together with Boehringer Ingelheim.

“Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease that often requires the use of multiple antidiabetic medications to improve glycemic control. Having three different diabetes medications in a single tablet is an important advance in diabetes treatment,” Ralph DeFronzo, MD, professor and diabetes division chief at the University of Texas Health San Antonio, said in the release.

All three drugs are separately well-established therapies for type 2 diabetes. Metformin is the most commonly prescribed treatment for type 2. Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, and linagliptin, a single-dose dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, are approved for the reduction of blood sugar in patients with type 2 disease, and empagliflozin is also approved for lowering the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 and established cardiovascular disease, according to the statement. (In 2015, the FDA approved a combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin, Glyxambi, as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.)

The approval of the triple-combination treatment was based on findings from two randomized, open-label trials that assessed the bioequivalence of empagliflozin, linagliptin, and extended-release metformin hydrochloride fixed-dose combination tablets, as well as their individual components. In addition, the trials established that the safety profile of the combination therapy was similar to the safety profiles of the components, the statement said.

Lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, and heart failure are among the side effects associated with the combination therapy, with upper respiratory tract infection and gastroenteritis among the most common. Serious side effects include dehydration, ketoacidosis, kidney problems, urinary tract and vaginal yeast infections, and hypoglycemia.

As with empagliflozin and linagliptin alone, the combination therapy is not recommended for individuals with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis, and it has not been tested in patients with a history of pancreatitis. The combination also has a warning for lactic acidosis, a rare, but serious, condition that can arise with metformin accumulation.

The combination product is contraindicated for people with kidney problems and end-stage renal disease or who are on dialysis; have metabolic acidosis or diabetic ketoacidosis; or are allergic to empagliflozin, linagliptin, or metformin.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a triple-combination tablet (Trijardy XR), comprising empagliflozin (Jardiance), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and extended-release metformin hydrochloride, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Trijardy XR will be available in four different dosages and is indicated as a once-daily treatment, together with diet and exercise, for adults who are already on treatment for type 2 disease but require additional agents to attain healthy hemoglobin A_1c targets, according to a statement released by Eli Lilly, which will market the newly approved treatment together with Boehringer Ingelheim.

“Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease that often requires the use of multiple antidiabetic medications to improve glycemic control. Having three different diabetes medications in a single tablet is an important advance in diabetes treatment,” Ralph DeFronzo, MD, professor and diabetes division chief at the University of Texas Health San Antonio, said in the release.

All three drugs are separately well-established therapies for type 2 diabetes. Metformin is the most commonly prescribed treatment for type 2. Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, and linagliptin, a single-dose dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, are approved for the reduction of blood sugar in patients with type 2 disease, and empagliflozin is also approved for lowering the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 and established cardiovascular disease, according to the statement. (In 2015, the FDA approved a combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin, Glyxambi, as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.)

The approval of the triple-combination treatment was based on findings from two randomized, open-label trials that assessed the bioequivalence of empagliflozin, linagliptin, and extended-release metformin hydrochloride fixed-dose combination tablets, as well as their individual components. In addition, the trials established that the safety profile of the combination therapy was similar to the safety profiles of the components, the statement said.

Lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, and heart failure are among the side effects associated with the combination therapy, with upper respiratory tract infection and gastroenteritis among the most common. Serious side effects include dehydration, ketoacidosis, kidney problems, urinary tract and vaginal yeast infections, and hypoglycemia.

As with empagliflozin and linagliptin alone, the combination therapy is not recommended for individuals with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis, and it has not been tested in patients with a history of pancreatitis. The combination also has a warning for lactic acidosis, a rare, but serious, condition that can arise with metformin accumulation.

The combination product is contraindicated for people with kidney problems and end-stage renal disease or who are on dialysis; have metabolic acidosis or diabetic ketoacidosis; or are allergic to empagliflozin, linagliptin, or metformin.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a triple-combination tablet (Trijardy XR), comprising empagliflozin (Jardiance), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and extended-release metformin hydrochloride, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Trijardy XR will be available in four different dosages and is indicated as a once-daily treatment, together with diet and exercise, for adults who are already on treatment for type 2 disease but require additional agents to attain healthy hemoglobin A_1c targets, according to a statement released by Eli Lilly, which will market the newly approved treatment together with Boehringer Ingelheim.

“Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease that often requires the use of multiple antidiabetic medications to improve glycemic control. Having three different diabetes medications in a single tablet is an important advance in diabetes treatment,” Ralph DeFronzo, MD, professor and diabetes division chief at the University of Texas Health San Antonio, said in the release.

All three drugs are separately well-established therapies for type 2 diabetes. Metformin is the most commonly prescribed treatment for type 2. Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, and linagliptin, a single-dose dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, are approved for the reduction of blood sugar in patients with type 2 disease, and empagliflozin is also approved for lowering the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 and established cardiovascular disease, according to the statement. (In 2015, the FDA approved a combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin, Glyxambi, as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.)

The approval of the triple-combination treatment was based on findings from two randomized, open-label trials that assessed the bioequivalence of empagliflozin, linagliptin, and extended-release metformin hydrochloride fixed-dose combination tablets, as well as their individual components. In addition, the trials established that the safety profile of the combination therapy was similar to the safety profiles of the components, the statement said.

Lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, and heart failure are among the side effects associated with the combination therapy, with upper respiratory tract infection and gastroenteritis among the most common. Serious side effects include dehydration, ketoacidosis, kidney problems, urinary tract and vaginal yeast infections, and hypoglycemia.

As with empagliflozin and linagliptin alone, the combination therapy is not recommended for individuals with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis, and it has not been tested in patients with a history of pancreatitis. The combination also has a warning for lactic acidosis, a rare, but serious, condition that can arise with metformin accumulation.

The combination product is contraindicated for people with kidney problems and end-stage renal disease or who are on dialysis; have metabolic acidosis or diabetic ketoacidosis; or are allergic to empagliflozin, linagliptin, or metformin.

Shave and a haircut … and a blood glucose test? A study shows that barbershops owned by black proprietors can play a role in encouraging black men to get screened for diabetes.

In research letter published in the Jan. 27 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, Marcela Osorio, BA, from New York University and coauthors wrote that black men with diabetes have disproportionately high rates of diabetes complications and lower survival rates. Their diagnosis is often delayed, particularly among men without regular primary health care.

gisele/Getty Images

SOURCE: Osorio M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6867.

Shave and a haircut … and a blood glucose test? A study shows that barbershops owned by black proprietors can play a role in encouraging black men to get screened for diabetes.

In research letter published in the Jan. 27 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, Marcela Osorio, BA, from New York University and coauthors wrote that black men with diabetes have disproportionately high rates of diabetes complications and lower survival rates. Their diagnosis is often delayed, particularly among men without regular primary health care.

gisele/Getty Images

SOURCE: Osorio M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6867.

Shave and a haircut … and a blood glucose test? A study shows that barbershops owned by black proprietors can play a role in encouraging black men to get screened for diabetes.

In research letter published in the Jan. 27 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, Marcela Osorio, BA, from New York University and coauthors wrote that black men with diabetes have disproportionately high rates of diabetes complications and lower survival rates. Their diagnosis is often delayed, particularly among men without regular primary health care.

gisele/Getty Images

SOURCE: Osorio M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6867.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Reducing the cost of insulin – and other high-priced medications – in the United States will require a concerted effort involving multiple changes to the current convoluted drug pricing system, Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, argues in a new commentary.

The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action was published in the January 2020 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who specializes in treating myeloma and, more recently, has become an expert in drug pricing.

He also presented the information in a YouTube video.

As has been widely reported and examined by Congress in the past few years, the cost of insulin in the United States has risen at a far higher rate than inflation. For example, the list price of a single vial of Humalog jumped from $21 in 1999 to $275 in 2019, a far higher price than anywhere else in the world.

Stories of one in four patients having to ration their insulin use because of cost, and of some dying, have fueled protests, leading to legislative efforts and to a few initiatives by some of the manufacturers to address the cost problem.

Collective advocacy

Much of the blame has been placed on the manufacturers for charging such high prices and on the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – also known as “middlemen” – for incentivizing higher-priced products on formularies through rebates. Those are major factors, Dr. Rajkumar argues, but they are not the only ones.

“There is no one reason why this is happening, and no one solution. It’s very complicated. It’s multiple factors all playing together. The only way to tackle it is to really understand it 360,” he said in an interview.

This is true of drug prices overall in the United States, but insulin is a special case. The current analog formulations have not changed in more than 20 years, yet only in the past 5 years have a handful of biosimilar and generic versions started to appear from the same manufacturers as the branded products.

“Insulin is a window into what’s wrong with the pharma industry. ... It’s the best example of how the system is broken,” Dr. Rajkumar stressed.

Physicians can help ease the problem, he said, by becoming educated about drug prices, taking cost into account when prescribing, and routinely discussing prescription drug affordability with patients.

Resources such as www.goodrx.com and www.blinkhealth.com provide information about drug prices and pharmacies that offer drugs at the lowest prices.

“Doctors need to not be suspicious of biosimilars and generics,” he emphasized.  

Physicians can also advocate for policies that will lower insulin prices, and their institutions can establish preferences for lower-cost biosimilars in formularies.

“Our individual and collective advocacy gives voice to the needs of our patients,” Dr. Rajkumar emphasized.
 

‘Everyone in the supply chain benefits’

In his commentary, Dr. Rajkumar lists six major reasons for the high cost of insulin:

1. People with type 1 diabetes are a “vulnerable population” who will die without insulin and are therefore willing to pay a high price to stay alive.

2. Just three manufacturers – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis – control nearly the entire insulin market in the United States, with no regulations to cap or control the prices they can charge.

3. The manufacturers continually file new patents for existing insulin products – 70 in the case of Lantus, for example – that provide additional years of monopoly protection from competition.

4. Although the Food and Drug Administration has been receptive to approving insulin biosimilars, it still requires manufacturers to go through a long and cumbersome process to obtain licensure, sometimes taking as long as 10 years.

5.PBMs, paid by insurance companies to negotiate prices with retail pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies (through rebates), stand to benefit from higher, not lower, list prices.

6. Pharmaceutical companies have vast lobbying power.

In regard to the fifth point, about PBMs, Dr. Rajkumar said, “It’s not just the PBMs – it’s the whole supply chain. It’s hard to put a finger on the source of the problem. There’s no transparency in any of the arrangements for you to know why only certain drugs are on a given formulary of an insurance company or PBM. But we do know that, in general, the whole supply chain benefits from the higher list price. Everyone.”
 

‘Authorized generic’ insulins

That is why Dr. Rajkumar is not convinced that Eli Lilly’s recent launch of half-priced “authorized generic” insulins – first the Lispro injection in March 2019, and then two combination pen products in January 2020 – or Novo Nordisk’s My$99Insulin program and “follow-on” authorized generic versions of Novolog and NovoLog Mix, launched Jan. 2, 2020, will have a huge impact.

“It’s common sense. If Apple made the same iPhone for two different prices, who would pay the full price? It gives you a window into asking what is wrong with the system that allows that? To pay for the higher-priced product, somebody is being paid,” he said.

Indeed, in December 2019, the offices of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued a report from a survey of 400 pharmacies nationwide that found that 83% of the less expensive authorized generic Insulin Lispro was not in stock.

More than two-thirds of pharmacies reported they could not order the product.

“Eli Lilly has failed to take consequential steps – such as simply lowering the list price of Humalog, as it has in foreign markets – to provide lower-cost access to this important diabetes drug,” according to the senators’ report, which concludes by urging Eli Lilly to lower the list price of its insulin and calling for Congress to take steps to enact systemic change to reduce drug prices nationwide.

Asked for comment, Dani Barnhizer, Eli Lilly’s manager of global diabetes communications, said, “Like Senators Warren and Blumenthal, Lilly would like to see even broader use of Insulin Lispro injection because it’s a real solution that can lower copays for people living with diabetes.”

“But the Senators’ paper failed to identify the system challenges that have inhibited access to this lower list price product,” Ms. Barnhizer said. “Payers determine an individual’s premiums and copays, which are subsidized by rebates that pharmaceutical companies pay. And many payers prioritize these rebates to lower premiums instead of offering low copays for chronic medications such as insulin.

“It’s why only one in four people using Medicare Part D, and one in five with commercial plans, have coverage for Insulin Lispro injection. That will not change until payers prioritize providing consistent, affordable insulin copays,” she added.

However, Ms. Barnhizer also noted, “It is not unusual for pharmacies to not stock a medicine. Any pharmacy can place an order for Insulin Lispro injection, with delivery in 1-2 days. All major U.S. wholesalers are now distributing Insulin Lispro injection.”

She also said that people who earn 400% or less of the federal poverty level may be eligible for free insulin, and that Lilly can provide free insulin to anyone in emergency situations. (Novo Nordisk offers that as well.)

Asked why Lilly does not simply lower the price of all their insulins, Ms. Barnhizer responded: “Cutting the list prices would significantly disrupt access to branded insulins, which thousands of insured patients depend on. Launching lower-priced insulin options is a less disruptive approach to help reduce the amount people pay at the pharmacy for people who need the help.”
 

Government role needed

In addition to the recommendations for physicians and their institutions, Dr. Rajkumar listed several potential policy-level solutions:

1. At the state and federal level, regulations should protect against excessive drug launch prices through the same type of value-based pricing approaches used in other developed countries. “Capping the maximum price increases to the rate of inflation is needed and can happen only through state and/or federal legislation,” he wrote.

Although some may see this as antithetical to “free market” economics, Dr. Rajkumar points out that, in the case of many prescription drugs, including insulin, “we not only have an unregulated monopoly, but it’s a prolonged unregulated monopoly for a lifesaving product, not a luxury item.”

“When you grant monopoly protection and put a barrier on competition, that’s not a free market. People have always had regulations on monopolies. Unregulated monopoly is a recipe for high prices. You have to have some regulation that protects citizens from exploitation.”

And here, he believes, the United States could adopt price negotiations as practiced in Europe and other parts of the world, but which are currently forbidden in the United States. 

“Other countries negotiate the price in exchange for monopoly protection. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” he said.

2. Reform of the regulatory and legal processes to ease the path for approval of generics and biosimilars to enter the market. This could include reciprocal approval so that biosimilars approved in Canada or the European Union could automatically be granted FDA approval in the United States.

3. Reform of the patent system to prevent overpatenting and patent abuse, by capping patent life to 7-10 years and forbidding use of additional patents as a way of prolonging market exclusivity.

To this point, Barnhizer pointed out that “none of the Lilly insulins are patent protected. Our most commonly used insulin, Humalog U-100, lost patent protection in 2014.”

4. A nongovernmental agency should oversee pricing and make recommendations to Medicare and insurers on the maximum price of new and existing drugs, including insulin. One body poised to do that work is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives 77% of its funding from nonprofit foundations. “I have worked with them and they are the best there is,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

5. Any rebates paid by manufacturers to PBMs should be transparent to all stakeholders, including patients.

6. Nonprofit generic manufacturing should be established. The Mayo Clinic has recently partnered with Intermountain Healthcare and several other organizations in creating Civica Rx, a nonprofit generic company.

7. Measures and laws that provide access to insulin in emergency situations are needed, particularly for people with type 1 diabetes.

Recent proposed and enacted legislation has been aimed at some of these goals.

The Insulin Price Reduction Act, introduced in October 2019 and just endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, would reduce insulin costs by providing incentives for manufacturers to revert to the 2006 list price of all insulins.

The Affordable Insulin Approvals Now Act, introduced in July 2019, aims to speed up approvals of generic and biosimilar insulins.

And in May 2019, the state of Colorado passed a bill to cap patient copays for insulin at $100 a month, and similar legislation has been introduced in several other states.

Dr. Rajkumar says that an overall fix will require changes at the federal level.

But, he said, they do not need to happen all at once.

“There are a number of changes that need to happen, but we can do one legislation at a time. ... I’m optimistic that something will happen. This is a national conversation. Both sides of the aisle want to do something about it. People are indeed feeling the pinch, so maybe something will get done,” he said.

Dr. Rajkumar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reducing the cost of insulin – and other high-priced medications – in the United States will require a concerted effort involving multiple changes to the current convoluted drug pricing system, Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, argues in a new commentary.

The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action was published in the January 2020 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who specializes in treating myeloma and, more recently, has become an expert in drug pricing.

He also presented the information in a YouTube video.

As has been widely reported and examined by Congress in the past few years, the cost of insulin in the United States has risen at a far higher rate than inflation. For example, the list price of a single vial of Humalog jumped from $21 in 1999 to $275 in 2019, a far higher price than anywhere else in the world.

Stories of one in four patients having to ration their insulin use because of cost, and of some dying, have fueled protests, leading to legislative efforts and to a few initiatives by some of the manufacturers to address the cost problem.

Collective advocacy

Much of the blame has been placed on the manufacturers for charging such high prices and on the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – also known as “middlemen” – for incentivizing higher-priced products on formularies through rebates. Those are major factors, Dr. Rajkumar argues, but they are not the only ones.

“There is no one reason why this is happening, and no one solution. It’s very complicated. It’s multiple factors all playing together. The only way to tackle it is to really understand it 360,” he said in an interview.

This is true of drug prices overall in the United States, but insulin is a special case. The current analog formulations have not changed in more than 20 years, yet only in the past 5 years have a handful of biosimilar and generic versions started to appear from the same manufacturers as the branded products.

“Insulin is a window into what’s wrong with the pharma industry. ... It’s the best example of how the system is broken,” Dr. Rajkumar stressed.

Physicians can help ease the problem, he said, by becoming educated about drug prices, taking cost into account when prescribing, and routinely discussing prescription drug affordability with patients.

Resources such as www.goodrx.com and www.blinkhealth.com provide information about drug prices and pharmacies that offer drugs at the lowest prices.

“Doctors need to not be suspicious of biosimilars and generics,” he emphasized.  

Physicians can also advocate for policies that will lower insulin prices, and their institutions can establish preferences for lower-cost biosimilars in formularies.

“Our individual and collective advocacy gives voice to the needs of our patients,” Dr. Rajkumar emphasized.
 

‘Everyone in the supply chain benefits’

In his commentary, Dr. Rajkumar lists six major reasons for the high cost of insulin:

1. People with type 1 diabetes are a “vulnerable population” who will die without insulin and are therefore willing to pay a high price to stay alive.

2. Just three manufacturers – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis – control nearly the entire insulin market in the United States, with no regulations to cap or control the prices they can charge.

3. The manufacturers continually file new patents for existing insulin products – 70 in the case of Lantus, for example – that provide additional years of monopoly protection from competition.

4. Although the Food and Drug Administration has been receptive to approving insulin biosimilars, it still requires manufacturers to go through a long and cumbersome process to obtain licensure, sometimes taking as long as 10 years.

5.PBMs, paid by insurance companies to negotiate prices with retail pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies (through rebates), stand to benefit from higher, not lower, list prices.

6. Pharmaceutical companies have vast lobbying power.

In regard to the fifth point, about PBMs, Dr. Rajkumar said, “It’s not just the PBMs – it’s the whole supply chain. It’s hard to put a finger on the source of the problem. There’s no transparency in any of the arrangements for you to know why only certain drugs are on a given formulary of an insurance company or PBM. But we do know that, in general, the whole supply chain benefits from the higher list price. Everyone.”
 

‘Authorized generic’ insulins

That is why Dr. Rajkumar is not convinced that Eli Lilly’s recent launch of half-priced “authorized generic” insulins – first the Lispro injection in March 2019, and then two combination pen products in January 2020 – or Novo Nordisk’s My$99Insulin program and “follow-on” authorized generic versions of Novolog and NovoLog Mix, launched Jan. 2, 2020, will have a huge impact.

“It’s common sense. If Apple made the same iPhone for two different prices, who would pay the full price? It gives you a window into asking what is wrong with the system that allows that? To pay for the higher-priced product, somebody is being paid,” he said.

Indeed, in December 2019, the offices of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued a report from a survey of 400 pharmacies nationwide that found that 83% of the less expensive authorized generic Insulin Lispro was not in stock.

More than two-thirds of pharmacies reported they could not order the product.

“Eli Lilly has failed to take consequential steps – such as simply lowering the list price of Humalog, as it has in foreign markets – to provide lower-cost access to this important diabetes drug,” according to the senators’ report, which concludes by urging Eli Lilly to lower the list price of its insulin and calling for Congress to take steps to enact systemic change to reduce drug prices nationwide.

Asked for comment, Dani Barnhizer, Eli Lilly’s manager of global diabetes communications, said, “Like Senators Warren and Blumenthal, Lilly would like to see even broader use of Insulin Lispro injection because it’s a real solution that can lower copays for people living with diabetes.”

“But the Senators’ paper failed to identify the system challenges that have inhibited access to this lower list price product,” Ms. Barnhizer said. “Payers determine an individual’s premiums and copays, which are subsidized by rebates that pharmaceutical companies pay. And many payers prioritize these rebates to lower premiums instead of offering low copays for chronic medications such as insulin.

“It’s why only one in four people using Medicare Part D, and one in five with commercial plans, have coverage for Insulin Lispro injection. That will not change until payers prioritize providing consistent, affordable insulin copays,” she added.

However, Ms. Barnhizer also noted, “It is not unusual for pharmacies to not stock a medicine. Any pharmacy can place an order for Insulin Lispro injection, with delivery in 1-2 days. All major U.S. wholesalers are now distributing Insulin Lispro injection.”

She also said that people who earn 400% or less of the federal poverty level may be eligible for free insulin, and that Lilly can provide free insulin to anyone in emergency situations. (Novo Nordisk offers that as well.)

Asked why Lilly does not simply lower the price of all their insulins, Ms. Barnhizer responded: “Cutting the list prices would significantly disrupt access to branded insulins, which thousands of insured patients depend on. Launching lower-priced insulin options is a less disruptive approach to help reduce the amount people pay at the pharmacy for people who need the help.”
 

Government role needed

In addition to the recommendations for physicians and their institutions, Dr. Rajkumar listed several potential policy-level solutions:

1. At the state and federal level, regulations should protect against excessive drug launch prices through the same type of value-based pricing approaches used in other developed countries. “Capping the maximum price increases to the rate of inflation is needed and can happen only through state and/or federal legislation,” he wrote.

Although some may see this as antithetical to “free market” economics, Dr. Rajkumar points out that, in the case of many prescription drugs, including insulin, “we not only have an unregulated monopoly, but it’s a prolonged unregulated monopoly for a lifesaving product, not a luxury item.”

“When you grant monopoly protection and put a barrier on competition, that’s not a free market. People have always had regulations on monopolies. Unregulated monopoly is a recipe for high prices. You have to have some regulation that protects citizens from exploitation.”

And here, he believes, the United States could adopt price negotiations as practiced in Europe and other parts of the world, but which are currently forbidden in the United States. 

“Other countries negotiate the price in exchange for monopoly protection. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” he said.

2. Reform of the regulatory and legal processes to ease the path for approval of generics and biosimilars to enter the market. This could include reciprocal approval so that biosimilars approved in Canada or the European Union could automatically be granted FDA approval in the United States.

3. Reform of the patent system to prevent overpatenting and patent abuse, by capping patent life to 7-10 years and forbidding use of additional patents as a way of prolonging market exclusivity.

To this point, Barnhizer pointed out that “none of the Lilly insulins are patent protected. Our most commonly used insulin, Humalog U-100, lost patent protection in 2014.”

4. A nongovernmental agency should oversee pricing and make recommendations to Medicare and insurers on the maximum price of new and existing drugs, including insulin. One body poised to do that work is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives 77% of its funding from nonprofit foundations. “I have worked with them and they are the best there is,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

5. Any rebates paid by manufacturers to PBMs should be transparent to all stakeholders, including patients.

6. Nonprofit generic manufacturing should be established. The Mayo Clinic has recently partnered with Intermountain Healthcare and several other organizations in creating Civica Rx, a nonprofit generic company.

7. Measures and laws that provide access to insulin in emergency situations are needed, particularly for people with type 1 diabetes.

Recent proposed and enacted legislation has been aimed at some of these goals.

The Insulin Price Reduction Act, introduced in October 2019 and just endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, would reduce insulin costs by providing incentives for manufacturers to revert to the 2006 list price of all insulins.

The Affordable Insulin Approvals Now Act, introduced in July 2019, aims to speed up approvals of generic and biosimilar insulins.

And in May 2019, the state of Colorado passed a bill to cap patient copays for insulin at $100 a month, and similar legislation has been introduced in several other states.

Dr. Rajkumar says that an overall fix will require changes at the federal level.

But, he said, they do not need to happen all at once.

“There are a number of changes that need to happen, but we can do one legislation at a time. ... I’m optimistic that something will happen. This is a national conversation. Both sides of the aisle want to do something about it. People are indeed feeling the pinch, so maybe something will get done,” he said.

Dr. Rajkumar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reducing the cost of insulin – and other high-priced medications – in the United States will require a concerted effort involving multiple changes to the current convoluted drug pricing system, Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, argues in a new commentary.

The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action was published in the January 2020 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who specializes in treating myeloma and, more recently, has become an expert in drug pricing.

He also presented the information in a YouTube video.

As has been widely reported and examined by Congress in the past few years, the cost of insulin in the United States has risen at a far higher rate than inflation. For example, the list price of a single vial of Humalog jumped from $21 in 1999 to $275 in 2019, a far higher price than anywhere else in the world.

Stories of one in four patients having to ration their insulin use because of cost, and of some dying, have fueled protests, leading to legislative efforts and to a few initiatives by some of the manufacturers to address the cost problem.

Collective advocacy

Much of the blame has been placed on the manufacturers for charging such high prices and on the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – also known as “middlemen” – for incentivizing higher-priced products on formularies through rebates. Those are major factors, Dr. Rajkumar argues, but they are not the only ones.

“There is no one reason why this is happening, and no one solution. It’s very complicated. It’s multiple factors all playing together. The only way to tackle it is to really understand it 360,” he said in an interview.

This is true of drug prices overall in the United States, but insulin is a special case. The current analog formulations have not changed in more than 20 years, yet only in the past 5 years have a handful of biosimilar and generic versions started to appear from the same manufacturers as the branded products.

“Insulin is a window into what’s wrong with the pharma industry. ... It’s the best example of how the system is broken,” Dr. Rajkumar stressed.

Physicians can help ease the problem, he said, by becoming educated about drug prices, taking cost into account when prescribing, and routinely discussing prescription drug affordability with patients.

Resources such as www.goodrx.com and www.blinkhealth.com provide information about drug prices and pharmacies that offer drugs at the lowest prices.

“Doctors need to not be suspicious of biosimilars and generics,” he emphasized.  

Physicians can also advocate for policies that will lower insulin prices, and their institutions can establish preferences for lower-cost biosimilars in formularies.

“Our individual and collective advocacy gives voice to the needs of our patients,” Dr. Rajkumar emphasized.
 

‘Everyone in the supply chain benefits’

In his commentary, Dr. Rajkumar lists six major reasons for the high cost of insulin:

1. People with type 1 diabetes are a “vulnerable population” who will die without insulin and are therefore willing to pay a high price to stay alive.

2. Just three manufacturers – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis – control nearly the entire insulin market in the United States, with no regulations to cap or control the prices they can charge.

3. The manufacturers continually file new patents for existing insulin products – 70 in the case of Lantus, for example – that provide additional years of monopoly protection from competition.

4. Although the Food and Drug Administration has been receptive to approving insulin biosimilars, it still requires manufacturers to go through a long and cumbersome process to obtain licensure, sometimes taking as long as 10 years.

5.PBMs, paid by insurance companies to negotiate prices with retail pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies (through rebates), stand to benefit from higher, not lower, list prices.

6. Pharmaceutical companies have vast lobbying power.

In regard to the fifth point, about PBMs, Dr. Rajkumar said, “It’s not just the PBMs – it’s the whole supply chain. It’s hard to put a finger on the source of the problem. There’s no transparency in any of the arrangements for you to know why only certain drugs are on a given formulary of an insurance company or PBM. But we do know that, in general, the whole supply chain benefits from the higher list price. Everyone.”
 

‘Authorized generic’ insulins

That is why Dr. Rajkumar is not convinced that Eli Lilly’s recent launch of half-priced “authorized generic” insulins – first the Lispro injection in March 2019, and then two combination pen products in January 2020 – or Novo Nordisk’s My$99Insulin program and “follow-on” authorized generic versions of Novolog and NovoLog Mix, launched Jan. 2, 2020, will have a huge impact.

“It’s common sense. If Apple made the same iPhone for two different prices, who would pay the full price? It gives you a window into asking what is wrong with the system that allows that? To pay for the higher-priced product, somebody is being paid,” he said.

Indeed, in December 2019, the offices of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued a report from a survey of 400 pharmacies nationwide that found that 83% of the less expensive authorized generic Insulin Lispro was not in stock.

More than two-thirds of pharmacies reported they could not order the product.

“Eli Lilly has failed to take consequential steps – such as simply lowering the list price of Humalog, as it has in foreign markets – to provide lower-cost access to this important diabetes drug,” according to the senators’ report, which concludes by urging Eli Lilly to lower the list price of its insulin and calling for Congress to take steps to enact systemic change to reduce drug prices nationwide.

Asked for comment, Dani Barnhizer, Eli Lilly’s manager of global diabetes communications, said, “Like Senators Warren and Blumenthal, Lilly would like to see even broader use of Insulin Lispro injection because it’s a real solution that can lower copays for people living with diabetes.”

“But the Senators’ paper failed to identify the system challenges that have inhibited access to this lower list price product,” Ms. Barnhizer said. “Payers determine an individual’s premiums and copays, which are subsidized by rebates that pharmaceutical companies pay. And many payers prioritize these rebates to lower premiums instead of offering low copays for chronic medications such as insulin.

“It’s why only one in four people using Medicare Part D, and one in five with commercial plans, have coverage for Insulin Lispro injection. That will not change until payers prioritize providing consistent, affordable insulin copays,” she added.

However, Ms. Barnhizer also noted, “It is not unusual for pharmacies to not stock a medicine. Any pharmacy can place an order for Insulin Lispro injection, with delivery in 1-2 days. All major U.S. wholesalers are now distributing Insulin Lispro injection.”

She also said that people who earn 400% or less of the federal poverty level may be eligible for free insulin, and that Lilly can provide free insulin to anyone in emergency situations. (Novo Nordisk offers that as well.)

Asked why Lilly does not simply lower the price of all their insulins, Ms. Barnhizer responded: “Cutting the list prices would significantly disrupt access to branded insulins, which thousands of insured patients depend on. Launching lower-priced insulin options is a less disruptive approach to help reduce the amount people pay at the pharmacy for people who need the help.”
 

Government role needed

In addition to the recommendations for physicians and their institutions, Dr. Rajkumar listed several potential policy-level solutions:

1. At the state and federal level, regulations should protect against excessive drug launch prices through the same type of value-based pricing approaches used in other developed countries. “Capping the maximum price increases to the rate of inflation is needed and can happen only through state and/or federal legislation,” he wrote.

Although some may see this as antithetical to “free market” economics, Dr. Rajkumar points out that, in the case of many prescription drugs, including insulin, “we not only have an unregulated monopoly, but it’s a prolonged unregulated monopoly for a lifesaving product, not a luxury item.”

“When you grant monopoly protection and put a barrier on competition, that’s not a free market. People have always had regulations on monopolies. Unregulated monopoly is a recipe for high prices. You have to have some regulation that protects citizens from exploitation.”

And here, he believes, the United States could adopt price negotiations as practiced in Europe and other parts of the world, but which are currently forbidden in the United States. 

“Other countries negotiate the price in exchange for monopoly protection. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” he said.

2. Reform of the regulatory and legal processes to ease the path for approval of generics and biosimilars to enter the market. This could include reciprocal approval so that biosimilars approved in Canada or the European Union could automatically be granted FDA approval in the United States.

3. Reform of the patent system to prevent overpatenting and patent abuse, by capping patent life to 7-10 years and forbidding use of additional patents as a way of prolonging market exclusivity.

To this point, Barnhizer pointed out that “none of the Lilly insulins are patent protected. Our most commonly used insulin, Humalog U-100, lost patent protection in 2014.”

4. A nongovernmental agency should oversee pricing and make recommendations to Medicare and insurers on the maximum price of new and existing drugs, including insulin. One body poised to do that work is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives 77% of its funding from nonprofit foundations. “I have worked with them and they are the best there is,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

5. Any rebates paid by manufacturers to PBMs should be transparent to all stakeholders, including patients.

6. Nonprofit generic manufacturing should be established. The Mayo Clinic has recently partnered with Intermountain Healthcare and several other organizations in creating Civica Rx, a nonprofit generic company.

7. Measures and laws that provide access to insulin in emergency situations are needed, particularly for people with type 1 diabetes.

Recent proposed and enacted legislation has been aimed at some of these goals.

The Insulin Price Reduction Act, introduced in October 2019 and just endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, would reduce insulin costs by providing incentives for manufacturers to revert to the 2006 list price of all insulins.

The Affordable Insulin Approvals Now Act, introduced in July 2019, aims to speed up approvals of generic and biosimilar insulins.

And in May 2019, the state of Colorado passed a bill to cap patient copays for insulin at $100 a month, and similar legislation has been introduced in several other states.

Dr. Rajkumar says that an overall fix will require changes at the federal level.

But, he said, they do not need to happen all at once.

“There are a number of changes that need to happen, but we can do one legislation at a time. ... I’m optimistic that something will happen. This is a national conversation. Both sides of the aisle want to do something about it. People are indeed feeling the pinch, so maybe something will get done,” he said.

Dr. Rajkumar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an additional indication – reduction of cardiovascular (CV) disease risk – for the injectable formulation of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and has added new trial data information to the label of the oral version (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) pertaining to CV safety.

The agency expanded the once-weekly injectable semaglutide’s label to include an indication for reducing the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CV disease.

Initially approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults in December 2017, once-weekly subcutaneously injectable semaglutide comes in 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg doses in a dedicated prefilled pen device.

The approval for the new indication was based on data from the 2-year randomized Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6), in which injectable semaglutide or placebo was added to standard of care in 3,297 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

As reported by Medscape Medical News in September 2016, patients who underwent treatment with one of the two doses of semaglutide had a significant 26% lower risk for the primary composite outcome of first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, compared with those who received placebo.

The reduced CV risk was driven primarily by significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and nonfatal MI (39% and 26%, respectively). There was no difference in CV death between drug and placebo groups. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide than placebo, with the majority occurring during the first 30 weeks.

The oral semaglutide formulation, taken daily in 7-mg or 14-mg doses, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in September 2019, the first orally available GLP-1 agonist.

Now, the FDA has updated the prescribing information in the clinical studies section (section 14) to include results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, 3,183-subject Trial Investigating the Cardiovascular Safety of Oral Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 6), reported in June 2019, which found a nonsignificant 21% reduction in three-component MACE with oral semaglutide. The addition to the label for Rybelsus is with regard to CV safety, not benefit.
 

SOUL: Large ongoing CV outcomes trial for oral semaglutide

In June 2019, Novo Nordisk initiated a larger CV outcomes trial of oral semaglutide, A Heart Disease Study of Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (SOUL). The trial, which includes 9,642 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease, is further investigating the drug’s effects on the incidence of MACE. The estimated completion date is July 2024.

Semaglutide joins a growing list of drugs approved for treating type 2 diabetes that have been granted additional label indications for benefits beyond the lowering of glucose.

These include Novo Nordisk’s other injectable GLP-1 agonist, liraglutide (Victoza), additionally approved for reducing CV events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, and the sodium-glucose transport 2 inhibitors empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly), for reducing CV death; canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen), for reducing major adverse CV events,; kidney disease, CV death, and heart failure hospitalization; and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca), for reducing heart failure hospitalization.

Recently, in an exclusive Medscape Medical News article, some experts questioned the design of these CV outcomes trials, suggesting that imbalances in glycemic control, blood pressure, and diuretic use between treatment and placebo arms could have biased the CV and renal outcomes of the trials in favor of the study drugs
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an additional indication – reduction of cardiovascular (CV) disease risk – for the injectable formulation of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and has added new trial data information to the label of the oral version (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) pertaining to CV safety.

The agency expanded the once-weekly injectable semaglutide’s label to include an indication for reducing the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CV disease.

Initially approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults in December 2017, once-weekly subcutaneously injectable semaglutide comes in 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg doses in a dedicated prefilled pen device.

The approval for the new indication was based on data from the 2-year randomized Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6), in which injectable semaglutide or placebo was added to standard of care in 3,297 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

As reported by Medscape Medical News in September 2016, patients who underwent treatment with one of the two doses of semaglutide had a significant 26% lower risk for the primary composite outcome of first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, compared with those who received placebo.

The reduced CV risk was driven primarily by significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and nonfatal MI (39% and 26%, respectively). There was no difference in CV death between drug and placebo groups. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide than placebo, with the majority occurring during the first 30 weeks.

The oral semaglutide formulation, taken daily in 7-mg or 14-mg doses, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in September 2019, the first orally available GLP-1 agonist.

Now, the FDA has updated the prescribing information in the clinical studies section (section 14) to include results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, 3,183-subject Trial Investigating the Cardiovascular Safety of Oral Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 6), reported in June 2019, which found a nonsignificant 21% reduction in three-component MACE with oral semaglutide. The addition to the label for Rybelsus is with regard to CV safety, not benefit.
 

SOUL: Large ongoing CV outcomes trial for oral semaglutide

In June 2019, Novo Nordisk initiated a larger CV outcomes trial of oral semaglutide, A Heart Disease Study of Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (SOUL). The trial, which includes 9,642 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease, is further investigating the drug’s effects on the incidence of MACE. The estimated completion date is July 2024.

Semaglutide joins a growing list of drugs approved for treating type 2 diabetes that have been granted additional label indications for benefits beyond the lowering of glucose.

These include Novo Nordisk’s other injectable GLP-1 agonist, liraglutide (Victoza), additionally approved for reducing CV events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, and the sodium-glucose transport 2 inhibitors empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly), for reducing CV death; canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen), for reducing major adverse CV events,; kidney disease, CV death, and heart failure hospitalization; and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca), for reducing heart failure hospitalization.

Recently, in an exclusive Medscape Medical News article, some experts questioned the design of these CV outcomes trials, suggesting that imbalances in glycemic control, blood pressure, and diuretic use between treatment and placebo arms could have biased the CV and renal outcomes of the trials in favor of the study drugs
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an additional indication – reduction of cardiovascular (CV) disease risk – for the injectable formulation of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and has added new trial data information to the label of the oral version (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk) pertaining to CV safety.

The agency expanded the once-weekly injectable semaglutide’s label to include an indication for reducing the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CV disease.

Initially approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults in December 2017, once-weekly subcutaneously injectable semaglutide comes in 0.5-mg and 1.0-mg doses in a dedicated prefilled pen device.

The approval for the new indication was based on data from the 2-year randomized Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6), in which injectable semaglutide or placebo was added to standard of care in 3,297 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

As reported by Medscape Medical News in September 2016, patients who underwent treatment with one of the two doses of semaglutide had a significant 26% lower risk for the primary composite outcome of first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke, compared with those who received placebo.

The reduced CV risk was driven primarily by significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and nonfatal MI (39% and 26%, respectively). There was no difference in CV death between drug and placebo groups. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide than placebo, with the majority occurring during the first 30 weeks.

The oral semaglutide formulation, taken daily in 7-mg or 14-mg doses, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in September 2019, the first orally available GLP-1 agonist.

Now, the FDA has updated the prescribing information in the clinical studies section (section 14) to include results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, 3,183-subject Trial Investigating the Cardiovascular Safety of Oral Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (PIONEER 6), reported in June 2019, which found a nonsignificant 21% reduction in three-component MACE with oral semaglutide. The addition to the label for Rybelsus is with regard to CV safety, not benefit.
 

SOUL: Large ongoing CV outcomes trial for oral semaglutide

In June 2019, Novo Nordisk initiated a larger CV outcomes trial of oral semaglutide, A Heart Disease Study of Semaglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (SOUL). The trial, which includes 9,642 adults with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease, is further investigating the drug’s effects on the incidence of MACE. The estimated completion date is July 2024.

Semaglutide joins a growing list of drugs approved for treating type 2 diabetes that have been granted additional label indications for benefits beyond the lowering of glucose.

These include Novo Nordisk’s other injectable GLP-1 agonist, liraglutide (Victoza), additionally approved for reducing CV events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, and the sodium-glucose transport 2 inhibitors empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly), for reducing CV death; canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen), for reducing major adverse CV events,; kidney disease, CV death, and heart failure hospitalization; and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca), for reducing heart failure hospitalization.

Recently, in an exclusive Medscape Medical News article, some experts questioned the design of these CV outcomes trials, suggesting that imbalances in glycemic control, blood pressure, and diuretic use between treatment and placebo arms could have biased the CV and renal outcomes of the trials in favor of the study drugs
 

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

LOS ANGELES – Mounting evidence suggests that decreasing muscle mass with aging is associated with increased cardiometabolic risk.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Loss of lean body mass and function with aging decreases the amount of metabolically active tissue, which can lead to insulin resistance,” Elena Volpi, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease. “Insulin resistance reduces muscle protein anabolism and accelerates sarcopenia, perpetuating a vicious cycle.”

Sarcopenia, the involuntary loss of muscle mass and function that occurs with aging, is an ICD-10 codable condition that can be diagnosed by measuring muscle strength and quality, said Dr. Volpi, director of the Sealy Center on Aging at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. In the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study (Health ABC), researchers followed 2,292 relatively healthy adults aged 70-79 years for an average of 4.9 years (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med. 2006;61[1]:72-7). The researchers used isokinetic dynamometry to measure knee extension strength, isometric dynamometry to measure grip strength, CT scan to measure thigh muscle area, and dual X-ray absorptiometry to determine leg and arm lean soft-tissue mass. “Those individuals who started with the highest levels of muscle strength had the greatest survival, while those who had the lowest levels of muscle strength died earlier,” said Dr. Volpi, who was not affiliated with the study. “That was true for both men and women.”

More recently, researchers conducted a pooled analysis of nine cohort studies involving 34,485 community-dwelling older individuals who were tested with gait speed and followed for 6-21 years (JAMA. 2011;305[1]:50-8). They found that a higher gait speed was associated with higher survival at 5 and 10 years (P less than .001). “Muscle mass also appears to be associated in part with mortality and survival, although the association is not as strong as measures of strength and gait speed,” Dr. Volpi said.

Data from the 2009 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 1,537 participants, aged 65 years and older, found that sarcopenia is independently associated with cardiovascular disease (PLoS One. 2013 Mar 22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060119). Most of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease – such as age, waist circumference, body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, and total cholesterol – showed significant negative correlations with the ratio between appendicular skeletal muscle mass and body weight. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that sarcopenia was associated with cardiovascular disease, independent of other well-documented risk factors, renal function, and medications (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .025).

In addition, data from the British Regional Heart Study, which followed 4,252 older men for a mean of 11.3 years, found an association of sarcopenia and adiposity with cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62[2]:253-60). Specifically, all-cause mortality risk was significantly greater in men in the sarcopenic and obese groups (HRs, 1.41 and 1.21, respectively), compared with those in the optimal reference group, with the highest risk in sarcopenic obese individuals (HR, 1.72) after adjustment for lifestyle characteristics.

“Diabetes also accelerates loss of lean body mass in older adults,” added Dr. Volpi. “Data from the Health ABC study showed that individuals who did not have diabetes at the beginning of the 6-year observation period ... lost the least amount of muscle, compared with those who had undiagnosed or already diagnosed diabetes.”

The precise way in which sarcopenia is linked to metabolic disease remains elusive, she continued, but current evidence suggests that sarcopenia is characterized by a reduction in the protein synthetic response to metabolic stimulation by amino acids, exercise, and insulin in skeletal muscle. “This reduction in the anabolic response to protein synthesis is called anabolic resistance of aging, and it is mediated by reduced acute activation of mTORC1 [mTOR complex 1] signaling,” Dr. Volpi said. “There’s another step upstream of the mTORC1, in which the amino acids and insulin have to cross the blood-muscle barrier. Amino acids need to be transported into the muscle actively, like glucose. That is an important unexplored area that may contribute to sarcopenia.”

Dr. Volpi went on to note that endothelial dysfunction underlies muscle anabolic resistance and cardiovascular risk and is likely to be a fundamental cause of both problems. Recent studies have shown that increased levels of physical activity improve endothelial function, enhance insulin sensitivity and anabolic sensitivity to nutrients, and reduce cardiovascular risk.

For example, in a cohort of 45 nonfrail older adults with a mean age of 72 years, Dr. Volpi and colleagues carried out a phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to determine if chronic essential amino acid supplementation, aerobic exercise training, or a combination of the two interventions could improve muscle mass and function by stimulating muscle protein synthesis over the course of 24 weeks (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74[10]:1598-604). “We found that exercise supervised three times per week on a treadmill for 6 months improved physical function in both groups randomized to exercise,” Dr. Volpi said. “Disappointingly, there was no change in total lean mass with any of the interventions. There was a decrease in fat mass with exercise alone, and no change with exercise and amino acids. [Of note is that] the individuals who were randomized to the amino acids plus exercise group had a significant increase in leg strength, whereas the others did not.”

Preliminary findings from ongoing work by Dr. Volpi and colleagues suggest that, in diabetes, muscle protein synthesis and blood flow really “are not different in response to insulin in healthy older adults and diabetic older adults because they don’t change at all. However, we did find alterations in amino acid trafficking in diabetes. We found that older individuals with type 2 diabetes had a reduction of amino acid transport and a higher intracellular amino acid concentration, compared with age-matched, healthier individuals. The intracellular amino acid clearance improved in the healthy, nondiabetic older adults with hyperinsulinemia, whereas it did not change in diabetic older adults. As a result, the net muscle protein balance improved a little in the nondiabetic patients, but did not change in the diabetic patients.”

The researchers are evaluating older patients with type 2 diabetes to see whether there are alterations in vascular reactivity and protein synthesis and whether those can be overcome by resistance-exercise training. “Preliminary results show that flow-mediated dilation can actually increase in an older diabetic patient with resistance exercise training three times a week for 3 months,” she said. “Exercise can improve both endothelial dysfunction and sarcopenia and therefore improve physical function and reduce cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Volpi reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Mounting evidence suggests that decreasing muscle mass with aging is associated with increased cardiometabolic risk.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Loss of lean body mass and function with aging decreases the amount of metabolically active tissue, which can lead to insulin resistance,” Elena Volpi, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease. “Insulin resistance reduces muscle protein anabolism and accelerates sarcopenia, perpetuating a vicious cycle.”

Sarcopenia, the involuntary loss of muscle mass and function that occurs with aging, is an ICD-10 codable condition that can be diagnosed by measuring muscle strength and quality, said Dr. Volpi, director of the Sealy Center on Aging at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. In the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study (Health ABC), researchers followed 2,292 relatively healthy adults aged 70-79 years for an average of 4.9 years (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med. 2006;61[1]:72-7). The researchers used isokinetic dynamometry to measure knee extension strength, isometric dynamometry to measure grip strength, CT scan to measure thigh muscle area, and dual X-ray absorptiometry to determine leg and arm lean soft-tissue mass. “Those individuals who started with the highest levels of muscle strength had the greatest survival, while those who had the lowest levels of muscle strength died earlier,” said Dr. Volpi, who was not affiliated with the study. “That was true for both men and women.”

More recently, researchers conducted a pooled analysis of nine cohort studies involving 34,485 community-dwelling older individuals who were tested with gait speed and followed for 6-21 years (JAMA. 2011;305[1]:50-8). They found that a higher gait speed was associated with higher survival at 5 and 10 years (P less than .001). “Muscle mass also appears to be associated in part with mortality and survival, although the association is not as strong as measures of strength and gait speed,” Dr. Volpi said.

Data from the 2009 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 1,537 participants, aged 65 years and older, found that sarcopenia is independently associated with cardiovascular disease (PLoS One. 2013 Mar 22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060119). Most of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease – such as age, waist circumference, body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, and total cholesterol – showed significant negative correlations with the ratio between appendicular skeletal muscle mass and body weight. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that sarcopenia was associated with cardiovascular disease, independent of other well-documented risk factors, renal function, and medications (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .025).

In addition, data from the British Regional Heart Study, which followed 4,252 older men for a mean of 11.3 years, found an association of sarcopenia and adiposity with cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62[2]:253-60). Specifically, all-cause mortality risk was significantly greater in men in the sarcopenic and obese groups (HRs, 1.41 and 1.21, respectively), compared with those in the optimal reference group, with the highest risk in sarcopenic obese individuals (HR, 1.72) after adjustment for lifestyle characteristics.

“Diabetes also accelerates loss of lean body mass in older adults,” added Dr. Volpi. “Data from the Health ABC study showed that individuals who did not have diabetes at the beginning of the 6-year observation period ... lost the least amount of muscle, compared with those who had undiagnosed or already diagnosed diabetes.”

The precise way in which sarcopenia is linked to metabolic disease remains elusive, she continued, but current evidence suggests that sarcopenia is characterized by a reduction in the protein synthetic response to metabolic stimulation by amino acids, exercise, and insulin in skeletal muscle. “This reduction in the anabolic response to protein synthesis is called anabolic resistance of aging, and it is mediated by reduced acute activation of mTORC1 [mTOR complex 1] signaling,” Dr. Volpi said. “There’s another step upstream of the mTORC1, in which the amino acids and insulin have to cross the blood-muscle barrier. Amino acids need to be transported into the muscle actively, like glucose. That is an important unexplored area that may contribute to sarcopenia.”

Dr. Volpi went on to note that endothelial dysfunction underlies muscle anabolic resistance and cardiovascular risk and is likely to be a fundamental cause of both problems. Recent studies have shown that increased levels of physical activity improve endothelial function, enhance insulin sensitivity and anabolic sensitivity to nutrients, and reduce cardiovascular risk.

For example, in a cohort of 45 nonfrail older adults with a mean age of 72 years, Dr. Volpi and colleagues carried out a phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to determine if chronic essential amino acid supplementation, aerobic exercise training, or a combination of the two interventions could improve muscle mass and function by stimulating muscle protein synthesis over the course of 24 weeks (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74[10]:1598-604). “We found that exercise supervised three times per week on a treadmill for 6 months improved physical function in both groups randomized to exercise,” Dr. Volpi said. “Disappointingly, there was no change in total lean mass with any of the interventions. There was a decrease in fat mass with exercise alone, and no change with exercise and amino acids. [Of note is that] the individuals who were randomized to the amino acids plus exercise group had a significant increase in leg strength, whereas the others did not.”

Preliminary findings from ongoing work by Dr. Volpi and colleagues suggest that, in diabetes, muscle protein synthesis and blood flow really “are not different in response to insulin in healthy older adults and diabetic older adults because they don’t change at all. However, we did find alterations in amino acid trafficking in diabetes. We found that older individuals with type 2 diabetes had a reduction of amino acid transport and a higher intracellular amino acid concentration, compared with age-matched, healthier individuals. The intracellular amino acid clearance improved in the healthy, nondiabetic older adults with hyperinsulinemia, whereas it did not change in diabetic older adults. As a result, the net muscle protein balance improved a little in the nondiabetic patients, but did not change in the diabetic patients.”

The researchers are evaluating older patients with type 2 diabetes to see whether there are alterations in vascular reactivity and protein synthesis and whether those can be overcome by resistance-exercise training. “Preliminary results show that flow-mediated dilation can actually increase in an older diabetic patient with resistance exercise training three times a week for 3 months,” she said. “Exercise can improve both endothelial dysfunction and sarcopenia and therefore improve physical function and reduce cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Volpi reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Mounting evidence suggests that decreasing muscle mass with aging is associated with increased cardiometabolic risk.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Loss of lean body mass and function with aging decreases the amount of metabolically active tissue, which can lead to insulin resistance,” Elena Volpi, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease. “Insulin resistance reduces muscle protein anabolism and accelerates sarcopenia, perpetuating a vicious cycle.”

Sarcopenia, the involuntary loss of muscle mass and function that occurs with aging, is an ICD-10 codable condition that can be diagnosed by measuring muscle strength and quality, said Dr. Volpi, director of the Sealy Center on Aging at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. In the Health, Aging and Body Composition Study (Health ABC), researchers followed 2,292 relatively healthy adults aged 70-79 years for an average of 4.9 years (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med. 2006;61[1]:72-7). The researchers used isokinetic dynamometry to measure knee extension strength, isometric dynamometry to measure grip strength, CT scan to measure thigh muscle area, and dual X-ray absorptiometry to determine leg and arm lean soft-tissue mass. “Those individuals who started with the highest levels of muscle strength had the greatest survival, while those who had the lowest levels of muscle strength died earlier,” said Dr. Volpi, who was not affiliated with the study. “That was true for both men and women.”

More recently, researchers conducted a pooled analysis of nine cohort studies involving 34,485 community-dwelling older individuals who were tested with gait speed and followed for 6-21 years (JAMA. 2011;305[1]:50-8). They found that a higher gait speed was associated with higher survival at 5 and 10 years (P less than .001). “Muscle mass also appears to be associated in part with mortality and survival, although the association is not as strong as measures of strength and gait speed,” Dr. Volpi said.

Data from the 2009 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 1,537 participants, aged 65 years and older, found that sarcopenia is independently associated with cardiovascular disease (PLoS One. 2013 Mar 22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060119). Most of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease – such as age, waist circumference, body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, and total cholesterol – showed significant negative correlations with the ratio between appendicular skeletal muscle mass and body weight. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that sarcopenia was associated with cardiovascular disease, independent of other well-documented risk factors, renal function, and medications (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .025).

In addition, data from the British Regional Heart Study, which followed 4,252 older men for a mean of 11.3 years, found an association of sarcopenia and adiposity with cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62[2]:253-60). Specifically, all-cause mortality risk was significantly greater in men in the sarcopenic and obese groups (HRs, 1.41 and 1.21, respectively), compared with those in the optimal reference group, with the highest risk in sarcopenic obese individuals (HR, 1.72) after adjustment for lifestyle characteristics.

“Diabetes also accelerates loss of lean body mass in older adults,” added Dr. Volpi. “Data from the Health ABC study showed that individuals who did not have diabetes at the beginning of the 6-year observation period ... lost the least amount of muscle, compared with those who had undiagnosed or already diagnosed diabetes.”

The precise way in which sarcopenia is linked to metabolic disease remains elusive, she continued, but current evidence suggests that sarcopenia is characterized by a reduction in the protein synthetic response to metabolic stimulation by amino acids, exercise, and insulin in skeletal muscle. “This reduction in the anabolic response to protein synthesis is called anabolic resistance of aging, and it is mediated by reduced acute activation of mTORC1 [mTOR complex 1] signaling,” Dr. Volpi said. “There’s another step upstream of the mTORC1, in which the amino acids and insulin have to cross the blood-muscle barrier. Amino acids need to be transported into the muscle actively, like glucose. That is an important unexplored area that may contribute to sarcopenia.”

Dr. Volpi went on to note that endothelial dysfunction underlies muscle anabolic resistance and cardiovascular risk and is likely to be a fundamental cause of both problems. Recent studies have shown that increased levels of physical activity improve endothelial function, enhance insulin sensitivity and anabolic sensitivity to nutrients, and reduce cardiovascular risk.

For example, in a cohort of 45 nonfrail older adults with a mean age of 72 years, Dr. Volpi and colleagues carried out a phase 1, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to determine if chronic essential amino acid supplementation, aerobic exercise training, or a combination of the two interventions could improve muscle mass and function by stimulating muscle protein synthesis over the course of 24 weeks (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74[10]:1598-604). “We found that exercise supervised three times per week on a treadmill for 6 months improved physical function in both groups randomized to exercise,” Dr. Volpi said. “Disappointingly, there was no change in total lean mass with any of the interventions. There was a decrease in fat mass with exercise alone, and no change with exercise and amino acids. [Of note is that] the individuals who were randomized to the amino acids plus exercise group had a significant increase in leg strength, whereas the others did not.”

Preliminary findings from ongoing work by Dr. Volpi and colleagues suggest that, in diabetes, muscle protein synthesis and blood flow really “are not different in response to insulin in healthy older adults and diabetic older adults because they don’t change at all. However, we did find alterations in amino acid trafficking in diabetes. We found that older individuals with type 2 diabetes had a reduction of amino acid transport and a higher intracellular amino acid concentration, compared with age-matched, healthier individuals. The intracellular amino acid clearance improved in the healthy, nondiabetic older adults with hyperinsulinemia, whereas it did not change in diabetic older adults. As a result, the net muscle protein balance improved a little in the nondiabetic patients, but did not change in the diabetic patients.”

The researchers are evaluating older patients with type 2 diabetes to see whether there are alterations in vascular reactivity and protein synthesis and whether those can be overcome by resistance-exercise training. “Preliminary results show that flow-mediated dilation can actually increase in an older diabetic patient with resistance exercise training three times a week for 3 months,” she said. “Exercise can improve both endothelial dysfunction and sarcopenia and therefore improve physical function and reduce cardiovascular risk.”

Dr. Volpi reported having no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Kurt GMM Alberti, DPhil, FRCP, FRCPath, bariatric surgery should be used earlier in the course of diabetes to yield the most benefit. The problem is, far fewer people with diabetes are being referred for the surgery than would benefit from it.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

At the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease, Dr. Alberti said that only about 1% of eligible patients in the United States undergo bariatric surgery, compared with just 0.22% of eligible patients in the United Kingdom.

“Obesity is an increasing problem,” said Dr. Alberti, a senior research investigator in the section of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Imperial College, London. “The United States is leading the field [in obesity], and it doesn’t seem to be going away. This is in parallel with diabetes. According to the 2019 International Diabetes Federation’s Diabetes Atlas, the diabetes prevalence worldwide is now 463 million. It’s projected to reach 578 million by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. We have a major problem.”

Lifestyle modification with diet and exercise have been the cornerstone of diabetes therapy for more than 100 years, with only modest success. “A range of oral agents have been added [and they] certainly improve glycemic control, but few achieve lasting success, and few achieve remission,” Dr. Alberti said. Findings from DiRECT (Lancet. 2018;391:541-51) and the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:145-54) have shown dramatic improvements in glycemia, but only in the minority of patients who achieved weight loss of 10 kg or more. “In this group, 80% achieved remission after 2 years in DiRECT,” he said. “It is uncertain whether this can be sustained long term in real life, and how many people will respond. Major community prevention programs are under way in the U.S. and [United Kingdom], but many target individuals with prediabetes. Currently, it is unknown how successful these programs will be.”

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical guidelines state that bariatric surgery is a recommended treatment option for adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of either 40.0 kg/m² or higher (or 37.5 kg/m² or higher in people of Asian ancestry) or 35.0-39.9 kg/m² (32.5-37.4 kg/m² in people of Asian ancestry) and who do not achieve durable weight loss and improvement in comorbidities with reasonable nonsurgical methods. According to Dr. Alberti, surgery should be an accepted option in people who have type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher, and priority should be given to adolescents, young adults, and those with a shorter duration of diabetes.

The main suggestive evidence in favor of bariatric surgery having an impact on diabetes comes from the Swedish Obese Subjects Study, which had a median follow-up of 10 years (J Intern Med. 2013;273[3]:219-34). In patients with diabetes at baseline, 30% were still in remission at 15 years after surgery. After 18 years, cumulative microvascular disease had fallen from 42 to 21 per 1,000 person-years, and macrovascular complications had fallen by 25%. “This was not a randomized, controlled trial, however,” Dr. Alberti said. Several of these studies have now been performed, including the STAMPEDE trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-51) and recent studies led by Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, which show major glycemic benefit (Lancet. 2015;386[9997]:P964-73) with bariatric surgery.

According to Dr. Alberti, laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap band is the easiest bariatric surgery to perform but it has fallen out of favor because of lower diabetes remission rates, compared with the other procedures. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliary pancreatic diversion are all in use. Slightly higher remission rates have been shown with biliary pancreatic diversion. “There have also been consistent improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “Long-term follow-up is still [needed], but, in general, it seems that diabetic complications are lower than in medically treated control groups, and mortality may also be lower. The real question is, what is the impact on complications? There we have a problem, because we do not have any good randomized, controlled trials covering a 10- to 20-year period, which would give us clear evidence. There is reasonable evidence from cohort studies, though.”

Added benefits of bariatric surgery include improved quality of life, decreased blood pressure, less sleep apnea, improved cardiovascular risk factors, and better musculoskeletal function. For now, though, an unmet need persists. “The problem is that far fewer people are referred for bariatric surgery than would benefit,” Dr. Alberti said. “There are several barriers to greater use of bariatric surgery in those with diabetes. These include physician attitudes, inadequate referrals, patient perceptions, lack of awareness among patients, inadequate insurance coverage, and particularly health system capacity. There is also a lack of sympathy for overweight people in some places.”

Dr. Alberti reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Kurt GMM Alberti, DPhil, FRCP, FRCPath, bariatric surgery should be used earlier in the course of diabetes to yield the most benefit. The problem is, far fewer people with diabetes are being referred for the surgery than would benefit from it.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

At the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease, Dr. Alberti said that only about 1% of eligible patients in the United States undergo bariatric surgery, compared with just 0.22% of eligible patients in the United Kingdom.

“Obesity is an increasing problem,” said Dr. Alberti, a senior research investigator in the section of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Imperial College, London. “The United States is leading the field [in obesity], and it doesn’t seem to be going away. This is in parallel with diabetes. According to the 2019 International Diabetes Federation’s Diabetes Atlas, the diabetes prevalence worldwide is now 463 million. It’s projected to reach 578 million by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. We have a major problem.”

Lifestyle modification with diet and exercise have been the cornerstone of diabetes therapy for more than 100 years, with only modest success. “A range of oral agents have been added [and they] certainly improve glycemic control, but few achieve lasting success, and few achieve remission,” Dr. Alberti said. Findings from DiRECT (Lancet. 2018;391:541-51) and the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:145-54) have shown dramatic improvements in glycemia, but only in the minority of patients who achieved weight loss of 10 kg or more. “In this group, 80% achieved remission after 2 years in DiRECT,” he said. “It is uncertain whether this can be sustained long term in real life, and how many people will respond. Major community prevention programs are under way in the U.S. and [United Kingdom], but many target individuals with prediabetes. Currently, it is unknown how successful these programs will be.”

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical guidelines state that bariatric surgery is a recommended treatment option for adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of either 40.0 kg/m² or higher (or 37.5 kg/m² or higher in people of Asian ancestry) or 35.0-39.9 kg/m² (32.5-37.4 kg/m² in people of Asian ancestry) and who do not achieve durable weight loss and improvement in comorbidities with reasonable nonsurgical methods. According to Dr. Alberti, surgery should be an accepted option in people who have type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher, and priority should be given to adolescents, young adults, and those with a shorter duration of diabetes.

The main suggestive evidence in favor of bariatric surgery having an impact on diabetes comes from the Swedish Obese Subjects Study, which had a median follow-up of 10 years (J Intern Med. 2013;273[3]:219-34). In patients with diabetes at baseline, 30% were still in remission at 15 years after surgery. After 18 years, cumulative microvascular disease had fallen from 42 to 21 per 1,000 person-years, and macrovascular complications had fallen by 25%. “This was not a randomized, controlled trial, however,” Dr. Alberti said. Several of these studies have now been performed, including the STAMPEDE trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-51) and recent studies led by Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, which show major glycemic benefit (Lancet. 2015;386[9997]:P964-73) with bariatric surgery.

According to Dr. Alberti, laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap band is the easiest bariatric surgery to perform but it has fallen out of favor because of lower diabetes remission rates, compared with the other procedures. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliary pancreatic diversion are all in use. Slightly higher remission rates have been shown with biliary pancreatic diversion. “There have also been consistent improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “Long-term follow-up is still [needed], but, in general, it seems that diabetic complications are lower than in medically treated control groups, and mortality may also be lower. The real question is, what is the impact on complications? There we have a problem, because we do not have any good randomized, controlled trials covering a 10- to 20-year period, which would give us clear evidence. There is reasonable evidence from cohort studies, though.”

Added benefits of bariatric surgery include improved quality of life, decreased blood pressure, less sleep apnea, improved cardiovascular risk factors, and better musculoskeletal function. For now, though, an unmet need persists. “The problem is that far fewer people are referred for bariatric surgery than would benefit,” Dr. Alberti said. “There are several barriers to greater use of bariatric surgery in those with diabetes. These include physician attitudes, inadequate referrals, patient perceptions, lack of awareness among patients, inadequate insurance coverage, and particularly health system capacity. There is also a lack of sympathy for overweight people in some places.”

Dr. Alberti reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In the clinical experience of Kurt GMM Alberti, DPhil, FRCP, FRCPath, bariatric surgery should be used earlier in the course of diabetes to yield the most benefit. The problem is, far fewer people with diabetes are being referred for the surgery than would benefit from it.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

At the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease, Dr. Alberti said that only about 1% of eligible patients in the United States undergo bariatric surgery, compared with just 0.22% of eligible patients in the United Kingdom.

“Obesity is an increasing problem,” said Dr. Alberti, a senior research investigator in the section of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Imperial College, London. “The United States is leading the field [in obesity], and it doesn’t seem to be going away. This is in parallel with diabetes. According to the 2019 International Diabetes Federation’s Diabetes Atlas, the diabetes prevalence worldwide is now 463 million. It’s projected to reach 578 million by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. We have a major problem.”

Lifestyle modification with diet and exercise have been the cornerstone of diabetes therapy for more than 100 years, with only modest success. “A range of oral agents have been added [and they] certainly improve glycemic control, but few achieve lasting success, and few achieve remission,” Dr. Alberti said. Findings from DiRECT (Lancet. 2018;391:541-51) and the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:145-54) have shown dramatic improvements in glycemia, but only in the minority of patients who achieved weight loss of 10 kg or more. “In this group, 80% achieved remission after 2 years in DiRECT,” he said. “It is uncertain whether this can be sustained long term in real life, and how many people will respond. Major community prevention programs are under way in the U.S. and [United Kingdom], but many target individuals with prediabetes. Currently, it is unknown how successful these programs will be.”

The 2018 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical guidelines state that bariatric surgery is a recommended treatment option for adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of either 40.0 kg/m² or higher (or 37.5 kg/m² or higher in people of Asian ancestry) or 35.0-39.9 kg/m² (32.5-37.4 kg/m² in people of Asian ancestry) and who do not achieve durable weight loss and improvement in comorbidities with reasonable nonsurgical methods. According to Dr. Alberti, surgery should be an accepted option in people who have type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or higher, and priority should be given to adolescents, young adults, and those with a shorter duration of diabetes.

The main suggestive evidence in favor of bariatric surgery having an impact on diabetes comes from the Swedish Obese Subjects Study, which had a median follow-up of 10 years (J Intern Med. 2013;273[3]:219-34). In patients with diabetes at baseline, 30% were still in remission at 15 years after surgery. After 18 years, cumulative microvascular disease had fallen from 42 to 21 per 1,000 person-years, and macrovascular complications had fallen by 25%. “This was not a randomized, controlled trial, however,” Dr. Alberti said. Several of these studies have now been performed, including the STAMPEDE trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-51) and recent studies led by Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, which show major glycemic benefit (Lancet. 2015;386[9997]:P964-73) with bariatric surgery.

According to Dr. Alberti, laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap band is the easiest bariatric surgery to perform but it has fallen out of favor because of lower diabetes remission rates, compared with the other procedures. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and biliary pancreatic diversion are all in use. Slightly higher remission rates have been shown with biliary pancreatic diversion. “There have also been consistent improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular risk factors,” he said. “Long-term follow-up is still [needed], but, in general, it seems that diabetic complications are lower than in medically treated control groups, and mortality may also be lower. The real question is, what is the impact on complications? There we have a problem, because we do not have any good randomized, controlled trials covering a 10- to 20-year period, which would give us clear evidence. There is reasonable evidence from cohort studies, though.”

Added benefits of bariatric surgery include improved quality of life, decreased blood pressure, less sleep apnea, improved cardiovascular risk factors, and better musculoskeletal function. For now, though, an unmet need persists. “The problem is that far fewer people are referred for bariatric surgery than would benefit,” Dr. Alberti said. “There are several barriers to greater use of bariatric surgery in those with diabetes. These include physician attitudes, inadequate referrals, patient perceptions, lack of awareness among patients, inadequate insurance coverage, and particularly health system capacity. There is also a lack of sympathy for overweight people in some places.”

Dr. Alberti reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Safety Alert regarding the weight-management medication lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR) after results from a clinical trial assessing the drug’s safety showed a possible increased risk of cancer.

bankrx/Getty Images

“At this time, the cause of the cancer is uncertain, and we cannot conclude that lorcaserin contributes to the cancer risk. However, we wanted to make the public aware of this potential risk,” the agency said in a press release.

The agency advised that health care providers consider whether the benefits of taking lorcaserin outweighed the potential cancer risk, and that patients currently taking the medication should talk to their providers about the risks.

“We are continuing to evaluate the clinical trial results and will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review,” the FDA noted in the statement.

Lorcaserin, a serotonin 2C receptor agonist, was approved by the FDA in 2012 at a dosage of 20 mg once daily for use with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity as a means to improve weight loss in adults who are obese or overweight and have at least one weight-related medical problem, such as such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia. In July 2016, the agency approved a New Drug Application for an extended-release, once-daily formulation.

Headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, and constipation are the more common adverse effects in patients without diabetes, whereas hypoglycemia, headache, back pain, cough, and fatigue are more common in patients with diabetes. The treatment is contraindicated for pregnancy.

Lorcaserin is distributed by Eisai.*

[email protected]

*Correction, 1/15/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the manufacturer of lorcaserin. 

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Safety Alert regarding the weight-management medication lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR) after results from a clinical trial assessing the drug’s safety showed a possible increased risk of cancer.

bankrx/Getty Images

“At this time, the cause of the cancer is uncertain, and we cannot conclude that lorcaserin contributes to the cancer risk. However, we wanted to make the public aware of this potential risk,” the agency said in a press release.

The agency advised that health care providers consider whether the benefits of taking lorcaserin outweighed the potential cancer risk, and that patients currently taking the medication should talk to their providers about the risks.

“We are continuing to evaluate the clinical trial results and will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review,” the FDA noted in the statement.

Lorcaserin, a serotonin 2C receptor agonist, was approved by the FDA in 2012 at a dosage of 20 mg once daily for use with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity as a means to improve weight loss in adults who are obese or overweight and have at least one weight-related medical problem, such as such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia. In July 2016, the agency approved a New Drug Application for an extended-release, once-daily formulation.

Headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, and constipation are the more common adverse effects in patients without diabetes, whereas hypoglycemia, headache, back pain, cough, and fatigue are more common in patients with diabetes. The treatment is contraindicated for pregnancy.

Lorcaserin is distributed by Eisai.*

[email protected]

*Correction, 1/15/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the manufacturer of lorcaserin. 

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Safety Alert regarding the weight-management medication lorcaserin (Belviq, Belviq XR) after results from a clinical trial assessing the drug’s safety showed a possible increased risk of cancer.

bankrx/Getty Images

“At this time, the cause of the cancer is uncertain, and we cannot conclude that lorcaserin contributes to the cancer risk. However, we wanted to make the public aware of this potential risk,” the agency said in a press release.

The agency advised that health care providers consider whether the benefits of taking lorcaserin outweighed the potential cancer risk, and that patients currently taking the medication should talk to their providers about the risks.

“We are continuing to evaluate the clinical trial results and will communicate our final conclusions and recommendations when we have completed our review,” the FDA noted in the statement.

Lorcaserin, a serotonin 2C receptor agonist, was approved by the FDA in 2012 at a dosage of 20 mg once daily for use with a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity as a means to improve weight loss in adults who are obese or overweight and have at least one weight-related medical problem, such as such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia. In July 2016, the agency approved a New Drug Application for an extended-release, once-daily formulation.

Headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth, and constipation are the more common adverse effects in patients without diabetes, whereas hypoglycemia, headache, back pain, cough, and fatigue are more common in patients with diabetes. The treatment is contraindicated for pregnancy.

Lorcaserin is distributed by Eisai.*

[email protected]

*Correction, 1/15/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the manufacturer of lorcaserin.