Diabetes

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

Mitchel L. Zoler’s article on Abstract A105, presented at Obesity Week 2019, addresses an important health concern and is timely.

Over the past 4 decades we have seen a rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated health complications, not just in the United States but across the world. The incidence of obesity (having a BMI greater than 30) was 35% for women and 31% for men in the United States, and associated deaths and disability were primarily attributed to diabetes and cardiovascular disease resulting from obesity.

This article references the benefits of bariatric/metabolic surgery in individuals with class 1 obesity. In the United States, more than half of those who meet the criteria for obesity come under the class 1 category (BMI, 30-34.9). Those in this class of obesity are at increased risk of developing diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, obstructive sleep apnea, polycystic ovarian syndrome, and bone and joint disorders.

There are several studies that document the significant reduction in incidence of the above cardiometabolic risks with sustained weight loss. Nonsurgical interventions in individuals with class 1 obesity through lifestyle modifications and pharmacotherapy have not demonstrated success in providing persistent weight loss or metabolic benefits. The data presented in this article are of great significance to patients and physicians alike as they highlight the long-term benefits and reversal of metabolic disorders.

Current guidelines for bariatric surgery for individuals with a BMI greater than 35 were published in 1991. Since then several safe surgical options including laparoscopic procedures, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding have been developed with decreased surgical risks, morbidity, and mortality.

The International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders, the International Diabetes Federation, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom, have supported the option of bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals with metabolic disorders.

While lifestyle modifications with medications should be the first-line treatment for class 1 obesity, as a primary care physician I believe that, given the major changes in the surgical options, the proven long-term benefits, and the rising incidences of obesity and metabolic syndrome, it is time for the health care community, insurers, patients, and all other stakeholders to consider bariatric surgery in class 1 obese individuals as a potential and viable option.

Noel N. Deep, MD, is a general internist in a multispecialty group practice with Aspirus Antigo (Wis.) Clinic and the chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. He is also assistant clinical professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Central Wisconsin Campus, Wausau, and the governor of the Wisconsin chapter of the American College of Physicians. Dr. Deep serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

He made these comments in response to questions from MDedge and had no relevant disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for Toujeo (insulin glargine 300 units/mL injection; Sanofi) to include children as young as 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes.

The FDA first approved Toujeo in 2015 for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, designed as a more potent follow-up to Sanofi’s top-selling insulin glargine (Lantus).

Last month, Sanofi reported positive results from the phase 3 EDITION JUNIOR trial of Toujeo in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. These were presented at the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes 45th Annual Conference in Boston.

In the trial, 463 children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) treated for type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year and with A1c between 7.5% and 11.0% at screening were randomized to Toujeo or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100); participants continued to take their existing mealtime insulin.

The primary endpoint was noninferior reduction in A_1c after 26 weeks.

The study met its primary endpoint, confirming a noninferior reduction in A_1c with Toujeo versus Gla-100 after 26 weeks (mean reduction, 0.4% vs. 0.4%; difference, 0.004%; 95% confidence interval, –0.17 to 0.18; upper bound was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%).

Over 26 weeks, a comparable number of patients in each group experienced one or more hypoglycemic events documented at anytime over 24 hours. Numerically fewer patients taking Toujeo experienced severe hypoglycemia or experienced one or more episodes of hyperglycemia with ketosis compared with those taking Gla-100.

No unexpected safety concerns were reported based on the established profiles of both products, the company said.

In October 2019, the European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of Toujeo for children age 6 years and older with diabetes.

For more diabetes and endocrinology news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for Toujeo (insulin glargine 300 units/mL injection; Sanofi) to include children as young as 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes.

The FDA first approved Toujeo in 2015 for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, designed as a more potent follow-up to Sanofi’s top-selling insulin glargine (Lantus).

Last month, Sanofi reported positive results from the phase 3 EDITION JUNIOR trial of Toujeo in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. These were presented at the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes 45th Annual Conference in Boston.

In the trial, 463 children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) treated for type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year and with A1c between 7.5% and 11.0% at screening were randomized to Toujeo or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100); participants continued to take their existing mealtime insulin.

The primary endpoint was noninferior reduction in A_1c after 26 weeks.

The study met its primary endpoint, confirming a noninferior reduction in A_1c with Toujeo versus Gla-100 after 26 weeks (mean reduction, 0.4% vs. 0.4%; difference, 0.004%; 95% confidence interval, –0.17 to 0.18; upper bound was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%).

Over 26 weeks, a comparable number of patients in each group experienced one or more hypoglycemic events documented at anytime over 24 hours. Numerically fewer patients taking Toujeo experienced severe hypoglycemia or experienced one or more episodes of hyperglycemia with ketosis compared with those taking Gla-100.

No unexpected safety concerns were reported based on the established profiles of both products, the company said.

In October 2019, the European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of Toujeo for children age 6 years and older with diabetes.

For more diabetes and endocrinology news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for Toujeo (insulin glargine 300 units/mL injection; Sanofi) to include children as young as 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes.

The FDA first approved Toujeo in 2015 for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, designed as a more potent follow-up to Sanofi’s top-selling insulin glargine (Lantus).

Last month, Sanofi reported positive results from the phase 3 EDITION JUNIOR trial of Toujeo in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. These were presented at the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes 45th Annual Conference in Boston.

In the trial, 463 children and adolescents (aged 6-17 years) treated for type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year and with A1c between 7.5% and 11.0% at screening were randomized to Toujeo or insulin glargine 100 units/mL (Gla-100); participants continued to take their existing mealtime insulin.

The primary endpoint was noninferior reduction in A_1c after 26 weeks.

The study met its primary endpoint, confirming a noninferior reduction in A_1c with Toujeo versus Gla-100 after 26 weeks (mean reduction, 0.4% vs. 0.4%; difference, 0.004%; 95% confidence interval, –0.17 to 0.18; upper bound was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.3%).

Over 26 weeks, a comparable number of patients in each group experienced one or more hypoglycemic events documented at anytime over 24 hours. Numerically fewer patients taking Toujeo experienced severe hypoglycemia or experienced one or more episodes of hyperglycemia with ketosis compared with those taking Gla-100.

No unexpected safety concerns were reported based on the established profiles of both products, the company said.

In October 2019, the European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of Toujeo for children age 6 years and older with diabetes.

For more diabetes and endocrinology news, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

BUSAN, SOUTH KOREA – The practice of insulin rationing because of cost by people with type 1 diabetes is considerably more common in the United States than in other high-income countries, and is even higher than in some low- and middle-income countries, new data suggest.

Findings from the latest survey conducted by the nonprofit advocacy organization T1International were presented at the International Diabetes Federation Congress 2019 by organization trustee James Elliott, MMSc, of Toronto.

The data were also simultaneously posted on the organization’s website.

The 2018 online survey is an update of T1International’s 2016 survey. It was disseminated through the organization’s website, partner organizations, and social media. The survey questions were developed by people living with type 1 diabetes to ensure they made sense to patients.

A total of 1,478 respondents from 90 countries completed the online survey in 2018.

Overall, 18% reported rationing insulin in the previous year because of cost. About 26% of 627 respondents from the United States reported the practice, compared with 6.5% of 525 respondents from other high-income countries, and 10.9% of 256 respondents from low- and middle-income countries. Rates of rationing suplies for blood glucose testing were even higher.

“The take-home point is that insulin rationing and blood glucose testing rationing is a reality for far more people with diabetes than I think is acknowledged,” said Mr. Elliott.

“One of the key findings is that many people are actually better off living in lower- and middle-income countries than in the United States, which is quite shameful,” Mr. Elliott told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

He advised clinicians to ask patients if they’re insulin rationing, but to be mindful that “not everyone is going to be upfront. There’re a lot of associated stigmas.”

Endocrinologist Irl B. Hirsch, MD, noted that the rationing rate reported for the United States in the survey is similar to that found in a recently published study from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Hirsch, who is chair of Diabetes Treatment and Teaching at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Elliott.

“It is shameful and embarrassing sitting here with colleagues from around the world at IDF. It is time for our elected officials [in the United States] to do something instead of simply talking about it,” Dr. Hirsch said.

Many have no coverage, blood glucose test rationing also common

Overall, 66.2% of survey respondents reported having no financial coverage for diabetes expenses, many instead relying on support from family and friends, charities and nonprofit organizations, donations including online programs such as GoFundMe, and/or assistance from government or pharmaceutical company programs.

By region, the proportions reporting no coverage for diabetes supplies were 79.2% in the United States, 54.0% in other high-income countries, and 59.8% in low- and middle-income countries.

“Many countries still lack any kind of support system to help people with type 1 diabetes survive,” Mr. Elliott noted.

Also asked to comment, Edward W. Gregg, PhD, a professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Imperial College, London, said: “It’s pretty astounding to me that two thirds of people with type 1 diabetes have no coverage whatsoever for out-of-pocket costs.”

“For as much concern as we have [for the US], it’s really staggering to think about how it must be in the low- and middle-income countries where having to pay for insulin takes away a large proportion of income,” he added.

Rationing of blood glucose testing was considerably more common than insulin rationing, with 33.5% overall reporting having done so in the last year.

The proportion was higher in the United States and in low- and middle-income countries, at 38.6% and 55.5%, respectively, compared with just 17.2% of high-income countries other than the United States.

Mr. Elliott told Medscape Medical News that the recent World Health Organization’s launch of its first-ever insulin prequalification program to expand access to treatment is a “start” and that T1International is pushing to expand that beyond human insulins to also include analogues.

“It’s a tough disease to survive in lower- and middle-income countries. Oftentimes, it’s a death sentence,” Mr. Elliott said.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

BUSAN, SOUTH KOREA – The practice of insulin rationing because of cost by people with type 1 diabetes is considerably more common in the United States than in other high-income countries, and is even higher than in some low- and middle-income countries, new data suggest.

Findings from the latest survey conducted by the nonprofit advocacy organization T1International were presented at the International Diabetes Federation Congress 2019 by organization trustee James Elliott, MMSc, of Toronto.

The data were also simultaneously posted on the organization’s website.

The 2018 online survey is an update of T1International’s 2016 survey. It was disseminated through the organization’s website, partner organizations, and social media. The survey questions were developed by people living with type 1 diabetes to ensure they made sense to patients.

A total of 1,478 respondents from 90 countries completed the online survey in 2018.

Overall, 18% reported rationing insulin in the previous year because of cost. About 26% of 627 respondents from the United States reported the practice, compared with 6.5% of 525 respondents from other high-income countries, and 10.9% of 256 respondents from low- and middle-income countries. Rates of rationing suplies for blood glucose testing were even higher.

“The take-home point is that insulin rationing and blood glucose testing rationing is a reality for far more people with diabetes than I think is acknowledged,” said Mr. Elliott.

“One of the key findings is that many people are actually better off living in lower- and middle-income countries than in the United States, which is quite shameful,” Mr. Elliott told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

He advised clinicians to ask patients if they’re insulin rationing, but to be mindful that “not everyone is going to be upfront. There’re a lot of associated stigmas.”

Endocrinologist Irl B. Hirsch, MD, noted that the rationing rate reported for the United States in the survey is similar to that found in a recently published study from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Hirsch, who is chair of Diabetes Treatment and Teaching at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Elliott.

“It is shameful and embarrassing sitting here with colleagues from around the world at IDF. It is time for our elected officials [in the United States] to do something instead of simply talking about it,” Dr. Hirsch said.

Many have no coverage, blood glucose test rationing also common

Overall, 66.2% of survey respondents reported having no financial coverage for diabetes expenses, many instead relying on support from family and friends, charities and nonprofit organizations, donations including online programs such as GoFundMe, and/or assistance from government or pharmaceutical company programs.

By region, the proportions reporting no coverage for diabetes supplies were 79.2% in the United States, 54.0% in other high-income countries, and 59.8% in low- and middle-income countries.

“Many countries still lack any kind of support system to help people with type 1 diabetes survive,” Mr. Elliott noted.

Also asked to comment, Edward W. Gregg, PhD, a professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Imperial College, London, said: “It’s pretty astounding to me that two thirds of people with type 1 diabetes have no coverage whatsoever for out-of-pocket costs.”

“For as much concern as we have [for the US], it’s really staggering to think about how it must be in the low- and middle-income countries where having to pay for insulin takes away a large proportion of income,” he added.

Rationing of blood glucose testing was considerably more common than insulin rationing, with 33.5% overall reporting having done so in the last year.

The proportion was higher in the United States and in low- and middle-income countries, at 38.6% and 55.5%, respectively, compared with just 17.2% of high-income countries other than the United States.

Mr. Elliott told Medscape Medical News that the recent World Health Organization’s launch of its first-ever insulin prequalification program to expand access to treatment is a “start” and that T1International is pushing to expand that beyond human insulins to also include analogues.

“It’s a tough disease to survive in lower- and middle-income countries. Oftentimes, it’s a death sentence,” Mr. Elliott said.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

BUSAN, SOUTH KOREA – The practice of insulin rationing because of cost by people with type 1 diabetes is considerably more common in the United States than in other high-income countries, and is even higher than in some low- and middle-income countries, new data suggest.

Findings from the latest survey conducted by the nonprofit advocacy organization T1International were presented at the International Diabetes Federation Congress 2019 by organization trustee James Elliott, MMSc, of Toronto.

The data were also simultaneously posted on the organization’s website.

The 2018 online survey is an update of T1International’s 2016 survey. It was disseminated through the organization’s website, partner organizations, and social media. The survey questions were developed by people living with type 1 diabetes to ensure they made sense to patients.

A total of 1,478 respondents from 90 countries completed the online survey in 2018.

Overall, 18% reported rationing insulin in the previous year because of cost. About 26% of 627 respondents from the United States reported the practice, compared with 6.5% of 525 respondents from other high-income countries, and 10.9% of 256 respondents from low- and middle-income countries. Rates of rationing suplies for blood glucose testing were even higher.

“The take-home point is that insulin rationing and blood glucose testing rationing is a reality for far more people with diabetes than I think is acknowledged,” said Mr. Elliott.

“One of the key findings is that many people are actually better off living in lower- and middle-income countries than in the United States, which is quite shameful,” Mr. Elliott told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

He advised clinicians to ask patients if they’re insulin rationing, but to be mindful that “not everyone is going to be upfront. There’re a lot of associated stigmas.”

Endocrinologist Irl B. Hirsch, MD, noted that the rationing rate reported for the United States in the survey is similar to that found in a recently published study from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Hirsch, who is chair of Diabetes Treatment and Teaching at the University of Washington, Seattle, agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Elliott.

“It is shameful and embarrassing sitting here with colleagues from around the world at IDF. It is time for our elected officials [in the United States] to do something instead of simply talking about it,” Dr. Hirsch said.

Many have no coverage, blood glucose test rationing also common

Overall, 66.2% of survey respondents reported having no financial coverage for diabetes expenses, many instead relying on support from family and friends, charities and nonprofit organizations, donations including online programs such as GoFundMe, and/or assistance from government or pharmaceutical company programs.

By region, the proportions reporting no coverage for diabetes supplies were 79.2% in the United States, 54.0% in other high-income countries, and 59.8% in low- and middle-income countries.

“Many countries still lack any kind of support system to help people with type 1 diabetes survive,” Mr. Elliott noted.

Also asked to comment, Edward W. Gregg, PhD, a professor in the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at Imperial College, London, said: “It’s pretty astounding to me that two thirds of people with type 1 diabetes have no coverage whatsoever for out-of-pocket costs.”

“For as much concern as we have [for the US], it’s really staggering to think about how it must be in the low- and middle-income countries where having to pay for insulin takes away a large proportion of income,” he added.

Rationing of blood glucose testing was considerably more common than insulin rationing, with 33.5% overall reporting having done so in the last year.

The proportion was higher in the United States and in low- and middle-income countries, at 38.6% and 55.5%, respectively, compared with just 17.2% of high-income countries other than the United States.

Mr. Elliott told Medscape Medical News that the recent World Health Organization’s launch of its first-ever insulin prequalification program to expand access to treatment is a “start” and that T1International is pushing to expand that beyond human insulins to also include analogues.

“It’s a tough disease to survive in lower- and middle-income countries. Oftentimes, it’s a death sentence,” Mr. Elliott said.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether metformin use is associated with lower risk of fatal or nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as compared to sulfonylurea use among diabetic patients with reduced kidney function.

Design. Retrospective cohort study of US Veterans receiving care within the Veterans Health Administration, with data supplemented by linkage to Medicare, Medicaid, and National Death Index data from 2001 through 2016.

Setting and participants. A retrospective cohort of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients, aged 18 years and older. Pharmacy data included medication, date filled, days supplied, and number of pills dispensed. For Medicare and Medicaid patients, enrollees’ claims files and prescription (Part D) data were obtained. In addition, dates and cause of death were obtained from vital status and the National Death Index files.

Patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes were identified by selecting new users of metformin, glipizide, glyburide, or glimepiride. These patients were followed longitudinally and the date of cohort entry and start of follow-up was the day of reaching a reduced kidney function threshold, defined as either an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or serum creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL for men or 1.4 mg/dL for women. Patients were excluded for nonpersistence, defined as 90 days without an antidiabetic drug; censoring, defined as the 181st day of no VHA contact; or study end date of December 31, 2016.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was the composite of MACE including hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or date of cardiovascular death. The secondary outcome excluded TIA as part of the composite MACE event because not all patients who sustain a TIA are admitted to the hospital.

Main results. From January 1, 2002 through December 30, 2015, 67,749 new metformin users and 28,976 new sulfonylurea users who persisted with treatment were identified. After using propensity score-weighted matching, 24,679 metformin users and 24,799 sulfonylurea users entered the final analysis. Cohort patients were 98% male and 81.8% white. Metformin users were younger than sulfonylurea users, with a median age of 61 years versus 71 years, respectively.

For the main outcome, there were 1048 composite MACE events among metformin patients with reduced kidney function and 1394 MACE events among sulfonylurea patients, yielding 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.7-24.4) versus 29.2 (95% CI, 27.7-30.7) events per 1000 person-years of use, respectively, after propensity score-weighting. After covariate adjustment, the cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for MACE was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) among metformin users compared with sulfonylurea users. The adjusted incidence rate difference was 5.8 (95% CI, 4.1-7.3) fewer events per 1000-person years for metformin compared with sulfonylurea users. Results were also consistent for each component of the primary outcome, including cardiovascular hospitalizations (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95) and cardiovascular deaths (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78).

Analysis of secondary outcomes, which included AMI, stroke, and cardiovascular death and excluded TIA, demonstrated similar results, with a cause-specific aHR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84) among metformin users compared with sulfonylurea users. The adjusted incidence rate difference was 5.9 (95% CI, 4.3-7.6) fewer events per 1000-person years for metformin compared with sulfonylurea users.

Conclusion. For patients with diabetes and reduced kidney function, treatment with metformin monotherapy, as compared with a sulfonylurea, was associated with a lower risk of MACE.

Commentary

There are approximately 30 million US adults with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), of whom 20% also have impaired kidney function or chronic kidney disease (CKD).¹ Metformin hydrochloride has remained the preferred first-line treatment for T2DM based on safety and effectiveness, as well as low cost.² Metformin is eliminated by the kidneys and can accumulate as eGFR declines. Based on the negative clinical experience, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning restricting metformin for patients with serum creatinine levels of 1.5 mg/dL or greater for men or 1.4 mg/dL or greater for women. The FDA recommended against starting metformin therapy in patients with CKD with eGFR between 30 and 45 mL/min/1.73 m², although patients already taking metformin can continue with caution in that setting.^1,3

There are several limitations in conducting observational studies comparing metformin to other glucose-lowering medications. First, metformin trials typically excluded patients with CKD due to the FDA warnings. Second, there is usually a time-lag bias in which patients who initiate glucose-lowering medications other than metformin are at a later stage of disease. Third, there is often an allocation bias, as there are substantial differences in baseline characteristics between metformin and sulfonylurea monotherapy users, with metformin users usually being younger and healthier.⁴

In this retrospective cohort study by Roumie et al, the authors used propensity score–weighted matching to reduce the impacts on time-lag and allocation bias. However, several major limitations remained in this study. First, the study design excluded those who began diabetes treatment after the onset of reduced kidney function; therefore, this study cannot be generalized to patients who already have reduced eGFR at the time of metformin initiation. Second, cohort entry and the start of follow-up was either an elevated serum creatinine or reduced eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The cohort may have included some patients with an acute kidney injury event, rather than progression to CKD, who recovered from their acute kidney injury. Third, the study population was mostly elderly white men; together with the lack of dose analysis, this study may not be generalizable to other populations.

The current study demonstrated that metformin use, as compared to sulfonylureas, has a lower risk of fatal or nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with reduced kidney function. When clinicians are managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, it is important to keep in mind that all medications have adverse effects. There are now 11 drug classes for treating diabetes, in addition to multiple insulin options, and the challenge for clinicians is to present clear information to guide patients using shared decision making, based on each patient’s clinical circumstances and preferences, to achieve individualized glycemic target ranges.

–Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether metformin use is associated with lower risk of fatal or nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as compared to sulfonylurea use among diabetic patients with reduced kidney function.

Design. Retrospective cohort study of US Veterans receiving care within the Veterans Health Administration, with data supplemented by linkage to Medicare, Medicaid, and National Death Index data from 2001 through 2016.

Setting and participants. A retrospective cohort of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients, aged 18 years and older. Pharmacy data included medication, date filled, days supplied, and number of pills dispensed. For Medicare and Medicaid patients, enrollees’ claims files and prescription (Part D) data were obtained. In addition, dates and cause of death were obtained from vital status and the National Death Index files.

Patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes were identified by selecting new users of metformin, glipizide, glyburide, or glimepiride. These patients were followed longitudinally and the date of cohort entry and start of follow-up was the day of reaching a reduced kidney function threshold, defined as either an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or serum creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL for men or 1.4 mg/dL for women. Patients were excluded for nonpersistence, defined as 90 days without an antidiabetic drug; censoring, defined as the 181st day of no VHA contact; or study end date of December 31, 2016.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was the composite of MACE including hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or date of cardiovascular death. The secondary outcome excluded TIA as part of the composite MACE event because not all patients who sustain a TIA are admitted to the hospital.

Main results. From January 1, 2002 through December 30, 2015, 67,749 new metformin users and 28,976 new sulfonylurea users who persisted with treatment were identified. After using propensity score-weighted matching, 24,679 metformin users and 24,799 sulfonylurea users entered the final analysis. Cohort patients were 98% male and 81.8% white. Metformin users were younger than sulfonylurea users, with a median age of 61 years versus 71 years, respectively.

For the main outcome, there were 1048 composite MACE events among metformin patients with reduced kidney function and 1394 MACE events among sulfonylurea patients, yielding 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.7-24.4) versus 29.2 (95% CI, 27.7-30.7) events per 1000 person-years of use, respectively, after propensity score-weighting. After covariate adjustment, the cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for MACE was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) among metformin users compared with sulfonylurea users. The adjusted incidence rate difference was 5.8 (95% CI, 4.1-7.3) fewer events per 1000-person years for metformin compared with sulfonylurea users. Results were also consistent for each component of the primary outcome, including cardiovascular hospitalizations (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95) and cardiovascular deaths (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78).

Analysis of secondary outcomes, which included AMI, stroke, and cardiovascular death and excluded TIA, demonstrated similar results, with a cause-specific aHR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84) among metformin users compared with sulfonylurea users. The adjusted incidence rate difference was 5.9 (95% CI, 4.3-7.6) fewer events per 1000-person years for metformin compared with sulfonylurea users.

Conclusion. For patients with diabetes and reduced kidney function, treatment with metformin monotherapy, as compared with a sulfonylurea, was associated with a lower risk of MACE.

Commentary

There are approximately 30 million US adults with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), of whom 20% also have impaired kidney function or chronic kidney disease (CKD).¹ Metformin hydrochloride has remained the preferred first-line treatment for T2DM based on safety and effectiveness, as well as low cost.² Metformin is eliminated by the kidneys and can accumulate as eGFR declines. Based on the negative clinical experience, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning restricting metformin for patients with serum creatinine levels of 1.5 mg/dL or greater for men or 1.4 mg/dL or greater for women. The FDA recommended against starting metformin therapy in patients with CKD with eGFR between 30 and 45 mL/min/1.73 m², although patients already taking metformin can continue with caution in that setting.^1,3

There are several limitations in conducting observational studies comparing metformin to other glucose-lowering medications. First, metformin trials typically excluded patients with CKD due to the FDA warnings. Second, there is usually a time-lag bias in which patients who initiate glucose-lowering medications other than metformin are at a later stage of disease. Third, there is often an allocation bias, as there are substantial differences in baseline characteristics between metformin and sulfonylurea monotherapy users, with metformin users usually being younger and healthier.⁴

In this retrospective cohort study by Roumie et al, the authors used propensity score–weighted matching to reduce the impacts on time-lag and allocation bias. However, several major limitations remained in this study. First, the study design excluded those who began diabetes treatment after the onset of reduced kidney function; therefore, this study cannot be generalized to patients who already have reduced eGFR at the time of metformin initiation. Second, cohort entry and the start of follow-up was either an elevated serum creatinine or reduced eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The cohort may have included some patients with an acute kidney injury event, rather than progression to CKD, who recovered from their acute kidney injury. Third, the study population was mostly elderly white men; together with the lack of dose analysis, this study may not be generalizable to other populations.

The current study demonstrated that metformin use, as compared to sulfonylureas, has a lower risk of fatal or nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with reduced kidney function. When clinicians are managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, it is important to keep in mind that all medications have adverse effects. There are now 11 drug classes for treating diabetes, in addition to multiple insulin options, and the challenge for clinicians is to present clear information to guide patients using shared decision making, based on each patient’s clinical circumstances and preferences, to achieve individualized glycemic target ranges.

–Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Study Overview

Objective. To assess whether metformin use is associated with lower risk of fatal or nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as compared to sulfonylurea use among diabetic patients with reduced kidney function.

Design. Retrospective cohort study of US Veterans receiving care within the Veterans Health Administration, with data supplemented by linkage to Medicare, Medicaid, and National Death Index data from 2001 through 2016.

Setting and participants. A retrospective cohort of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients, aged 18 years and older. Pharmacy data included medication, date filled, days supplied, and number of pills dispensed. For Medicare and Medicaid patients, enrollees’ claims files and prescription (Part D) data were obtained. In addition, dates and cause of death were obtained from vital status and the National Death Index files.

Patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes were identified by selecting new users of metformin, glipizide, glyburide, or glimepiride. These patients were followed longitudinally and the date of cohort entry and start of follow-up was the day of reaching a reduced kidney function threshold, defined as either an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or serum creatinine level of 1.5 mg/dL for men or 1.4 mg/dL for women. Patients were excluded for nonpersistence, defined as 90 days without an antidiabetic drug; censoring, defined as the 181st day of no VHA contact; or study end date of December 31, 2016.

Main outcome measures. Primary outcome was the composite of MACE including hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or date of cardiovascular death. The secondary outcome excluded TIA as part of the composite MACE event because not all patients who sustain a TIA are admitted to the hospital.

Main results. From January 1, 2002 through December 30, 2015, 67,749 new metformin users and 28,976 new sulfonylurea users who persisted with treatment were identified. After using propensity score-weighted matching, 24,679 metformin users and 24,799 sulfonylurea users entered the final analysis. Cohort patients were 98% male and 81.8% white. Metformin users were younger than sulfonylurea users, with a median age of 61 years versus 71 years, respectively.

For the main outcome, there were 1048 composite MACE events among metformin patients with reduced kidney function and 1394 MACE events among sulfonylurea patients, yielding 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.7-24.4) versus 29.2 (95% CI, 27.7-30.7) events per 1000 person-years of use, respectively, after propensity score-weighting. After covariate adjustment, the cause-specific adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for MACE was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) among metformin users compared with sulfonylurea users. The adjusted incidence rate difference was 5.8 (95% CI, 4.1-7.3) fewer events per 1000-person years for metformin compared with sulfonylurea users. Results were also consistent for each component of the primary outcome, including cardiovascular hospitalizations (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95) and cardiovascular deaths (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78).

Analysis of secondary outcomes, which included AMI, stroke, and cardiovascular death and excluded TIA, demonstrated similar results, with a cause-specific aHR of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84) among metformin users compared with sulfonylurea users. The adjusted incidence rate difference was 5.9 (95% CI, 4.3-7.6) fewer events per 1000-person years for metformin compared with sulfonylurea users.

Conclusion. For patients with diabetes and reduced kidney function, treatment with metformin monotherapy, as compared with a sulfonylurea, was associated with a lower risk of MACE.

Commentary

There are approximately 30 million US adults with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), of whom 20% also have impaired kidney function or chronic kidney disease (CKD).¹ Metformin hydrochloride has remained the preferred first-line treatment for T2DM based on safety and effectiveness, as well as low cost.² Metformin is eliminated by the kidneys and can accumulate as eGFR declines. Based on the negative clinical experience, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning restricting metformin for patients with serum creatinine levels of 1.5 mg/dL or greater for men or 1.4 mg/dL or greater for women. The FDA recommended against starting metformin therapy in patients with CKD with eGFR between 30 and 45 mL/min/1.73 m², although patients already taking metformin can continue with caution in that setting.^1,3

There are several limitations in conducting observational studies comparing metformin to other glucose-lowering medications. First, metformin trials typically excluded patients with CKD due to the FDA warnings. Second, there is usually a time-lag bias in which patients who initiate glucose-lowering medications other than metformin are at a later stage of disease. Third, there is often an allocation bias, as there are substantial differences in baseline characteristics between metformin and sulfonylurea monotherapy users, with metformin users usually being younger and healthier.⁴

In this retrospective cohort study by Roumie et al, the authors used propensity score–weighted matching to reduce the impacts on time-lag and allocation bias. However, several major limitations remained in this study. First, the study design excluded those who began diabetes treatment after the onset of reduced kidney function; therefore, this study cannot be generalized to patients who already have reduced eGFR at the time of metformin initiation. Second, cohort entry and the start of follow-up was either an elevated serum creatinine or reduced eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The cohort may have included some patients with an acute kidney injury event, rather than progression to CKD, who recovered from their acute kidney injury. Third, the study population was mostly elderly white men; together with the lack of dose analysis, this study may not be generalizable to other populations.

The current study demonstrated that metformin use, as compared to sulfonylureas, has a lower risk of fatal or nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with reduced kidney function. When clinicians are managing hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, it is important to keep in mind that all medications have adverse effects. There are now 11 drug classes for treating diabetes, in addition to multiple insulin options, and the challenge for clinicians is to present clear information to guide patients using shared decision making, based on each patient’s clinical circumstances and preferences, to achieve individualized glycemic target ranges.

–Ka Ming Gordon Ngai, MD, MPH

Nearly one in five adolescents and one in four young adults in the United States have prediabetes, with a higher prevalence among males, a study has found.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

Linda J. Andes, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and coauthors reported in JAMA Pediatrics their analysis of data from 2,606 adolescent (12-18 years) and 3,180 young adult (19-34 years) participants in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

This found that the percentage with prediabetes – defined as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or increased hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level – was 18% among adolescents and 24% among young adults.

The most common condition was IFG, which was seen in 11% of adolescents and 16% of young adults. The rate of IGT was 4% in adolescents and 6% of young adults, while elevated HbA_1c levels were seen in 5% of adolescents and 8% of young adults.

This information is important because “In adults, these three phenotypes increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as well as cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote. “In 2011-2012, the overall prevalence of prediabetes among U.S. adults, defined as the presence of any of the three glucose metabolism dysregulation phenotypes, was 38% and it increased to about 50% in persons 65 years and older.”

Dr. Andes and associates noted that isolated IFG was the most common glucose dysregulation seen in both adolescents and young adults. “While individuals with IFG are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, few primary prevention trials have included individuals selected for the presence of IFG and none have been conducted in adolescents with IFG or IGT to our knowledge.”

The study saw some key gender differences in prevalence. For example, the prevalence of IFG was significantly lower in adolescent girls than in boys (7% vs. 15%; P less than .001), and in young women, compared with young men (10% vs. 22%; P less than .001).

“These findings are consistent with those of other studies in adults; however, the underlying mechanisms for explaining this discrepancy are still unclear,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote.

Ethnicity also appeared to influence risk, with the prevalence of IFG significantly lower in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic adolescents. However, increased HbA_1c levels were significantly more prevalent in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic or non-Hispanic white adolescents.

“These findings highlight the need for additional studies on the long-term consequences and preventive strategies of abnormal glucose metabolism as measured by HbA_1c levels in adolescents and young adults, especially of minority racial/ethnic groups,” the authors wrote.

Adolescents with prediabetes had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, non-HDL cholesterol, waist-to-height ratio, higher body mass index, and lower insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal glucose tolerance. Among young adults with prediabetes, there was significantly higher systolic blood pressure and non-HDL cholesterol, compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Andes LJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4498.

Nearly one in five adolescents and one in four young adults in the United States have prediabetes, with a higher prevalence among males, a study has found.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

Linda J. Andes, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and coauthors reported in JAMA Pediatrics their analysis of data from 2,606 adolescent (12-18 years) and 3,180 young adult (19-34 years) participants in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

This found that the percentage with prediabetes – defined as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or increased hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level – was 18% among adolescents and 24% among young adults.

The most common condition was IFG, which was seen in 11% of adolescents and 16% of young adults. The rate of IGT was 4% in adolescents and 6% of young adults, while elevated HbA_1c levels were seen in 5% of adolescents and 8% of young adults.

This information is important because “In adults, these three phenotypes increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as well as cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote. “In 2011-2012, the overall prevalence of prediabetes among U.S. adults, defined as the presence of any of the three glucose metabolism dysregulation phenotypes, was 38% and it increased to about 50% in persons 65 years and older.”

Dr. Andes and associates noted that isolated IFG was the most common glucose dysregulation seen in both adolescents and young adults. “While individuals with IFG are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, few primary prevention trials have included individuals selected for the presence of IFG and none have been conducted in adolescents with IFG or IGT to our knowledge.”

The study saw some key gender differences in prevalence. For example, the prevalence of IFG was significantly lower in adolescent girls than in boys (7% vs. 15%; P less than .001), and in young women, compared with young men (10% vs. 22%; P less than .001).

“These findings are consistent with those of other studies in adults; however, the underlying mechanisms for explaining this discrepancy are still unclear,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote.

Ethnicity also appeared to influence risk, with the prevalence of IFG significantly lower in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic adolescents. However, increased HbA_1c levels were significantly more prevalent in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic or non-Hispanic white adolescents.

“These findings highlight the need for additional studies on the long-term consequences and preventive strategies of abnormal glucose metabolism as measured by HbA_1c levels in adolescents and young adults, especially of minority racial/ethnic groups,” the authors wrote.

Adolescents with prediabetes had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, non-HDL cholesterol, waist-to-height ratio, higher body mass index, and lower insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal glucose tolerance. Among young adults with prediabetes, there was significantly higher systolic blood pressure and non-HDL cholesterol, compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Andes LJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4498.

Nearly one in five adolescents and one in four young adults in the United States have prediabetes, with a higher prevalence among males, a study has found.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

Linda J. Andes, PhD, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and coauthors reported in JAMA Pediatrics their analysis of data from 2,606 adolescent (12-18 years) and 3,180 young adult (19-34 years) participants in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys.

This found that the percentage with prediabetes – defined as either impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or increased hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) level – was 18% among adolescents and 24% among young adults.

The most common condition was IFG, which was seen in 11% of adolescents and 16% of young adults. The rate of IGT was 4% in adolescents and 6% of young adults, while elevated HbA_1c levels were seen in 5% of adolescents and 8% of young adults.

This information is important because “In adults, these three phenotypes increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as well as cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote. “In 2011-2012, the overall prevalence of prediabetes among U.S. adults, defined as the presence of any of the three glucose metabolism dysregulation phenotypes, was 38% and it increased to about 50% in persons 65 years and older.”

Dr. Andes and associates noted that isolated IFG was the most common glucose dysregulation seen in both adolescents and young adults. “While individuals with IFG are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, few primary prevention trials have included individuals selected for the presence of IFG and none have been conducted in adolescents with IFG or IGT to our knowledge.”

The study saw some key gender differences in prevalence. For example, the prevalence of IFG was significantly lower in adolescent girls than in boys (7% vs. 15%; P less than .001), and in young women, compared with young men (10% vs. 22%; P less than .001).

“These findings are consistent with those of other studies in adults; however, the underlying mechanisms for explaining this discrepancy are still unclear,” Dr. Andes and coauthors wrote.

Ethnicity also appeared to influence risk, with the prevalence of IFG significantly lower in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic adolescents. However, increased HbA_1c levels were significantly more prevalent in non-Hispanic black adolescents, compared with Hispanic or non-Hispanic white adolescents.

“These findings highlight the need for additional studies on the long-term consequences and preventive strategies of abnormal glucose metabolism as measured by HbA_1c levels in adolescents and young adults, especially of minority racial/ethnic groups,” the authors wrote.

Adolescents with prediabetes had significantly higher systolic blood pressure, non-HDL cholesterol, waist-to-height ratio, higher body mass index, and lower insulin sensitivity, compared with those with normal glucose tolerance. Among young adults with prediabetes, there was significantly higher systolic blood pressure and non-HDL cholesterol, compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance.

No funding or conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Andes LJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4498.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD).

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD).

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) recently published a clinical practice guideline for the management of bile acid diarrhea (BAD).

Given a minimal evidence base, 16 out of the 17 guideline recommendations are conditional, according to lead author Daniel C. Sadowski, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Alta., and colleagues. Considering the shortage of high-quality evidence, the panel called for more randomized clinical trials to address current knowledge gaps.

“BAD is an understudied, often underappreciated condition, and questions remain regarding its diagnosis and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “There have been guidelines on the management of chronic diarrhea from the American Gastroenterological Association, and the British Society of Gastroenterology, but diagnosis and management of BAD was not assessed extensively in these publications. The British Society of Gastroenterology updated guidelines on the investigation of chronic diarrhea in adults, published after the consensus meeting, addressed some issues related to BAD.”

For the current guideline, using available evidence and clinical experience, expert panelists from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom aimed to “provide a reasonable and practical approach to care for specialists.” The guideline was further reviewed by the CAG Practice Affairs and Clinical Affairs Committees and the CAG Board of Directors.

The guideline first puts BAD in clinical context, noting a chronic diarrhea prevalence rate of approximately 5%. According to the guideline, approximately 1 out of 4 of these patients with chronic diarrhea may have BAD and prevalence of BAD is likely higher among those with other conditions, such as terminal ileal disease.

While BAD may be relatively common, it isn’t necessarily easy to diagnose, the panelists noted.

“The diagnosis of BAD continues to be a challenge, although this may be improved in the future with the general availability of screening serologic tests and other diagnostic tests,” the panelists wrote. “Although a treatment trial with bile acid sequestrants therapy (BAST) often is used, this approach has not been studied adequately, and likely is imprecise, and may lead to both undertreatment and overtreatment.”

Instead, the panelists recommended testing for BAD with 75-selenium homocholic acid taurine (SeHCAT) or 7-alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one.

After addressing treatable causes of BAD, the guideline recommends initial therapy with cholestyramine or, if this is poorly tolerated, switching to BAST. However, the panelists advised against BAST for patients with resection or ileal Crohn’s disease, for whom other antidiarrheal agents are more suitable. When appropriate, BAST should be given at the lowest effective dose, with periodic trials of on-demand, intermittent administration, the panelists recommended. When BAST is ineffective, the guideline recommends that clinicians review concurrent medications as a possible cause of BAD or reinvestigate.

Concluding the guideline, the panelists emphasized the need for more high-quality research.

“The group recognized that specific, high-certainty evidence was lacking in many areas and recommended further studies that would improve the data available in future methodologic evaluations,” the panelists wrote.

While improving diagnostic accuracy of BAD should be a major goal of such research, progress is currently limited by an integral shortcoming of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies, the panelists wrote.

“The main challenge in conducting DTA studies for BAD is the lack of a widely accepted or universally agreed-upon reference standard because the condition is defined and classified based on pathophysiologic mechanisms and its response to treatment (BAST),” the panelists wrote. “In addition, the index tests (SeHCAT, C4, FGF19, fecal bile acid assay) provide a continuous measure of metabolic function. Hence, DTA studies are not the most appropriate study design.”

“Therefore, one of the research priorities in BAD is for the scientific and clinical communities to agree on a reference standard that best represents BAD (e.g., response to BAST), with full understanding that the reference standard is and likely will be imperfect.”

The guideline was funded by unrestricted grants from Pendopharm and GE Healthcare Canada. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Sadowski DC et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Sep 14. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.08.062.

PHILADELPHIA – The substantial benefits from adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial applied to patients regardless of their age or baseline health status, a pair of new post hoc analyses suggest.

These findings emerged a day after a report that more fully delineated dapagliflozin’s consistent safety and efficacy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of whether they also had type 2 diabetes. One of the new, post hoc analyses reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions suggested that even the most elderly enrolled patients, 75 years and older, had a similar cut in mortality and acute heart failure exacerbations, compared with younger patients. A second post hoc analysis indicated that patients with severe heart failure symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with mild baseline symptoms, measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

The primary results from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, first reported in August 2019, showed that among more than 4,700 patients with HFrEF randomized to receive the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on top of standard HFrEF medications or placebo, those who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant, 26% decrease in their incidence of the primary study endpoint over a median 18 months, regardless of diabetes status (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

“These benefits were entirely consistent across the range of ages studied,” extending from patients younger than 55 years to those older than 75 years, John McMurray, MD, said at the meeting. “In many parts of the world, particularly North America and Western Europe, we have an increasingly elderly population. Many patients with heart failure are much older than in clinical trials,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Quality-of-life outcomes

The other new, post hoc analysis showed that patients with severe HF symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with milder baseline symptoms and less impaired function, measured by the KCCQ. Dapagliflozin treatment “improved cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure to a similar extent across the entire range of KCCQ at baseline,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, said in a separate talk at the meeting. In addition, dapagliflozin treatment increased the rate of small, moderate, and large clinically meaningful improvements in patients’ KCCQ scores across all key domains of the metric, which scores symptom frequency and severity, physical and social limitations, and quality of life, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

After the first 8 months of treatment in the DAPA-HF trial, 58% of the 2,373 patients who received dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful improvement in their total KCCQ symptom score of at least 5 points, compared with a 51% rate in the 2,371 patients in the control arm, a statistically significant difference. This meant that the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin was 14 patients to produce one additional patient with at least a 5-point KCCQ improvement compared with controls, a “very small” number needed to treat, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

Addition of the KCCQ to the panel of assessments that patients underwent during DAPA-HF reflected an evolved approach to measuring efficacy outcomes in clinical trials by including patient-reported outcomes. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance for heart failure drug development that explicitly called for efficacy endpoints in pivotal studies that measure how patients feel and function, and stating that these endpoints can be the basis for new drug approvals.

“To many patients, how they feel matters as much if not more than how long they live,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. The goals of heart failure treatments are not only to extend survival and reduced hospitalizations, but also to improve symptoms, function, and quality of life, he said.

“There is a lot of interest now in having outcomes in heart failure trials that are more meaningful to patients, like feeling better and being able to do more,” noted Dr. Walsh.

The DAPA-HF results also showed that patients had similar rates of reduction in death, heart failure hospitalization, or urgent clinical visits, regardless of how severely they were affected by their heart failure when they began dapagliflozin treatment. The researchers ran an analysis that divided the entire trial population into tertiles based on their KCCQ score on entering the study. Patients in the most severely-affected tertile had a 30% cut in their rate of death or acute heart failure exacerbation on dapagliflozin compared with placebo, while patients in the tertile with the mildest symptoms at baseline had a 38% reduction in their primary outcome incidence compared with controls who received placebo. Concurrently with Dr. Kosiborod’s report, the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044138).
 

Outcomes by age

Not surprisingly in DAPA-HF, the older patients were, the sicker, Dr. McMurray observed. Of the study’s 1,149 patients (24% of the study cohort) who were at least 75 years old, 62% had chronic kidney disease, compared with a 14% prevalence among the 636 patients younger than age 55. The 75-and-older group showed a steeper, 32% decline in incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy – than in the other studied age groups: a 24% decline in those 65-74 years old, a 29% cut in those 55-64 years old, and a 13% drop in patients younger than 55 years old.

In addition, patients aged 75 years or greater were just as likely as the overall group to show at least a 5-point improvement in their KCCQ Total Symptom Score on dapagliflozin, as well as about the same reduced rate of deterioration compared with placebo as tracked with the KCCQ.

Patients “got as much benefit in terms of symptoms as well as morbidity and mortality,” Dr. McMurray concluded. Concurrently with the meeting report the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044133).

“These data are of critical importance, as improving patient-reported outcomes in heart failure, especially in highly symptomatic patients, is an important goal in drug development,” G. Michael Felker, MD, wrote in an editorial accompanying the two published analyses (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044578). These new analyses also highlight another attractive feature of dapagliflozin and, apparently, the entire class of SGLT2 inhibitors: They “ ‘play well with others’ when it comes to overlapping intolerances that often limit (either in reality or in perception) optimization of GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy]. Although SGLT2 inhibitor therapy may lead to volume depletion and require adjustment of diuretics, the SGLT2 inhibitors generally lack some of the other dose-limiting adverse effects (such as renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and hypotension) that can make aggressive up-titration of GDMT problematic, particularly in older patients or those with more advanced disease,“ wrote Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “We stand at the beginning of a new era of ‘quadruple therapy’ for HFrEF with beta-blockers, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors,” he concluded.
 

A version of this article also appears on Medscape.com

PHILADELPHIA – The substantial benefits from adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial applied to patients regardless of their age or baseline health status, a pair of new post hoc analyses suggest.

These findings emerged a day after a report that more fully delineated dapagliflozin’s consistent safety and efficacy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of whether they also had type 2 diabetes. One of the new, post hoc analyses reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions suggested that even the most elderly enrolled patients, 75 years and older, had a similar cut in mortality and acute heart failure exacerbations, compared with younger patients. A second post hoc analysis indicated that patients with severe heart failure symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with mild baseline symptoms, measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

The primary results from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, first reported in August 2019, showed that among more than 4,700 patients with HFrEF randomized to receive the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on top of standard HFrEF medications or placebo, those who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant, 26% decrease in their incidence of the primary study endpoint over a median 18 months, regardless of diabetes status (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

“These benefits were entirely consistent across the range of ages studied,” extending from patients younger than 55 years to those older than 75 years, John McMurray, MD, said at the meeting. “In many parts of the world, particularly North America and Western Europe, we have an increasingly elderly population. Many patients with heart failure are much older than in clinical trials,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Quality-of-life outcomes

The other new, post hoc analysis showed that patients with severe HF symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with milder baseline symptoms and less impaired function, measured by the KCCQ. Dapagliflozin treatment “improved cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure to a similar extent across the entire range of KCCQ at baseline,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, said in a separate talk at the meeting. In addition, dapagliflozin treatment increased the rate of small, moderate, and large clinically meaningful improvements in patients’ KCCQ scores across all key domains of the metric, which scores symptom frequency and severity, physical and social limitations, and quality of life, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

After the first 8 months of treatment in the DAPA-HF trial, 58% of the 2,373 patients who received dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful improvement in their total KCCQ symptom score of at least 5 points, compared with a 51% rate in the 2,371 patients in the control arm, a statistically significant difference. This meant that the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin was 14 patients to produce one additional patient with at least a 5-point KCCQ improvement compared with controls, a “very small” number needed to treat, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

Addition of the KCCQ to the panel of assessments that patients underwent during DAPA-HF reflected an evolved approach to measuring efficacy outcomes in clinical trials by including patient-reported outcomes. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance for heart failure drug development that explicitly called for efficacy endpoints in pivotal studies that measure how patients feel and function, and stating that these endpoints can be the basis for new drug approvals.

“To many patients, how they feel matters as much if not more than how long they live,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. The goals of heart failure treatments are not only to extend survival and reduced hospitalizations, but also to improve symptoms, function, and quality of life, he said.

“There is a lot of interest now in having outcomes in heart failure trials that are more meaningful to patients, like feeling better and being able to do more,” noted Dr. Walsh.

The DAPA-HF results also showed that patients had similar rates of reduction in death, heart failure hospitalization, or urgent clinical visits, regardless of how severely they were affected by their heart failure when they began dapagliflozin treatment. The researchers ran an analysis that divided the entire trial population into tertiles based on their KCCQ score on entering the study. Patients in the most severely-affected tertile had a 30% cut in their rate of death or acute heart failure exacerbation on dapagliflozin compared with placebo, while patients in the tertile with the mildest symptoms at baseline had a 38% reduction in their primary outcome incidence compared with controls who received placebo. Concurrently with Dr. Kosiborod’s report, the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044138).
 

Outcomes by age

Not surprisingly in DAPA-HF, the older patients were, the sicker, Dr. McMurray observed. Of the study’s 1,149 patients (24% of the study cohort) who were at least 75 years old, 62% had chronic kidney disease, compared with a 14% prevalence among the 636 patients younger than age 55. The 75-and-older group showed a steeper, 32% decline in incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy – than in the other studied age groups: a 24% decline in those 65-74 years old, a 29% cut in those 55-64 years old, and a 13% drop in patients younger than 55 years old.

In addition, patients aged 75 years or greater were just as likely as the overall group to show at least a 5-point improvement in their KCCQ Total Symptom Score on dapagliflozin, as well as about the same reduced rate of deterioration compared with placebo as tracked with the KCCQ.

Patients “got as much benefit in terms of symptoms as well as morbidity and mortality,” Dr. McMurray concluded. Concurrently with the meeting report the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044133).

“These data are of critical importance, as improving patient-reported outcomes in heart failure, especially in highly symptomatic patients, is an important goal in drug development,” G. Michael Felker, MD, wrote in an editorial accompanying the two published analyses (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044578). These new analyses also highlight another attractive feature of dapagliflozin and, apparently, the entire class of SGLT2 inhibitors: They “ ‘play well with others’ when it comes to overlapping intolerances that often limit (either in reality or in perception) optimization of GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy]. Although SGLT2 inhibitor therapy may lead to volume depletion and require adjustment of diuretics, the SGLT2 inhibitors generally lack some of the other dose-limiting adverse effects (such as renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and hypotension) that can make aggressive up-titration of GDMT problematic, particularly in older patients or those with more advanced disease,“ wrote Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “We stand at the beginning of a new era of ‘quadruple therapy’ for HFrEF with beta-blockers, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors,” he concluded.
 

A version of this article also appears on Medscape.com

PHILADELPHIA – The substantial benefits from adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the DAPA-HF trial applied to patients regardless of their age or baseline health status, a pair of new post hoc analyses suggest.

These findings emerged a day after a report that more fully delineated dapagliflozin’s consistent safety and efficacy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) regardless of whether they also had type 2 diabetes. One of the new, post hoc analyses reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions suggested that even the most elderly enrolled patients, 75 years and older, had a similar cut in mortality and acute heart failure exacerbations, compared with younger patients. A second post hoc analysis indicated that patients with severe heart failure symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with mild baseline symptoms, measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

The primary results from the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, first reported in August 2019, showed that among more than 4,700 patients with HFrEF randomized to receive the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) on top of standard HFrEF medications or placebo, those who received dapagliflozin had a statistically significant, 26% decrease in their incidence of the primary study endpoint over a median 18 months, regardless of diabetes status (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

“These benefits were entirely consistent across the range of ages studied,” extending from patients younger than 55 years to those older than 75 years, John McMurray, MD, said at the meeting. “In many parts of the world, particularly North America and Western Europe, we have an increasingly elderly population. Many patients with heart failure are much older than in clinical trials,” he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Quality-of-life outcomes

The other new, post hoc analysis showed that patients with severe HF symptoms at entry into the trial received about as much benefit from the addition of dapagliflozin as did patients with milder baseline symptoms and less impaired function, measured by the KCCQ. Dapagliflozin treatment “improved cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure to a similar extent across the entire range of KCCQ at baseline,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, said in a separate talk at the meeting. In addition, dapagliflozin treatment increased the rate of small, moderate, and large clinically meaningful improvements in patients’ KCCQ scores across all key domains of the metric, which scores symptom frequency and severity, physical and social limitations, and quality of life, said Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

After the first 8 months of treatment in the DAPA-HF trial, 58% of the 2,373 patients who received dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful improvement in their total KCCQ symptom score of at least 5 points, compared with a 51% rate in the 2,371 patients in the control arm, a statistically significant difference. This meant that the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin was 14 patients to produce one additional patient with at least a 5-point KCCQ improvement compared with controls, a “very small” number needed to treat, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview.

Addition of the KCCQ to the panel of assessments that patients underwent during DAPA-HF reflected an evolved approach to measuring efficacy outcomes in clinical trials by including patient-reported outcomes. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance for heart failure drug development that explicitly called for efficacy endpoints in pivotal studies that measure how patients feel and function, and stating that these endpoints can be the basis for new drug approvals.

“To many patients, how they feel matters as much if not more than how long they live,” Dr. Kosiborod noted. The goals of heart failure treatments are not only to extend survival and reduced hospitalizations, but also to improve symptoms, function, and quality of life, he said.

“There is a lot of interest now in having outcomes in heart failure trials that are more meaningful to patients, like feeling better and being able to do more,” noted Dr. Walsh.

The DAPA-HF results also showed that patients had similar rates of reduction in death, heart failure hospitalization, or urgent clinical visits, regardless of how severely they were affected by their heart failure when they began dapagliflozin treatment. The researchers ran an analysis that divided the entire trial population into tertiles based on their KCCQ score on entering the study. Patients in the most severely-affected tertile had a 30% cut in their rate of death or acute heart failure exacerbation on dapagliflozin compared with placebo, while patients in the tertile with the mildest symptoms at baseline had a 38% reduction in their primary outcome incidence compared with controls who received placebo. Concurrently with Dr. Kosiborod’s report, the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044138).
 

Outcomes by age

Not surprisingly in DAPA-HF, the older patients were, the sicker, Dr. McMurray observed. Of the study’s 1,149 patients (24% of the study cohort) who were at least 75 years old, 62% had chronic kidney disease, compared with a 14% prevalence among the 636 patients younger than age 55. The 75-and-older group showed a steeper, 32% decline in incidence of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, or urgent HF visit requiring intravenous therapy – than in the other studied age groups: a 24% decline in those 65-74 years old, a 29% cut in those 55-64 years old, and a 13% drop in patients younger than 55 years old.

In addition, patients aged 75 years or greater were just as likely as the overall group to show at least a 5-point improvement in their KCCQ Total Symptom Score on dapagliflozin, as well as about the same reduced rate of deterioration compared with placebo as tracked with the KCCQ.

Patients “got as much benefit in terms of symptoms as well as morbidity and mortality,” Dr. McMurray concluded. Concurrently with the meeting report the results appeared in an article online (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044133).

“These data are of critical importance, as improving patient-reported outcomes in heart failure, especially in highly symptomatic patients, is an important goal in drug development,” G. Michael Felker, MD, wrote in an editorial accompanying the two published analyses (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044578). These new analyses also highlight another attractive feature of dapagliflozin and, apparently, the entire class of SGLT2 inhibitors: They “ ‘play well with others’ when it comes to overlapping intolerances that often limit (either in reality or in perception) optimization of GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy]. Although SGLT2 inhibitor therapy may lead to volume depletion and require adjustment of diuretics, the SGLT2 inhibitors generally lack some of the other dose-limiting adverse effects (such as renal dysfunction, hyperkalemia, and hypotension) that can make aggressive up-titration of GDMT problematic, particularly in older patients or those with more advanced disease,“ wrote Dr. Felker, professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “We stand at the beginning of a new era of ‘quadruple therapy’ for HFrEF with beta-blockers, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors,” he concluded.
 

A version of this article also appears on Medscape.com

WASHINGTON – Metformin’s role in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus has been firmly established by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial – most recently, by 15-year follow-up data reported this year – and the drug should be front and center for clinicians who hope to stave off the “remarkable” incidence of type 2 diabetes after GDM, Robert E. Ratner, MD, maintained at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

The DPP included “the single largest population of women with a history of GDM that’s been looked at in a randomized controlled trial,” and considering its multiethnic population, the trial offers a reliable representative sample to ponder today when evaluating long-term use of metformin after GDM, said Dr. Ratner, a principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored DPP and the DPP Outcomes Study and a former chief scientific & medical officer for the American Diabetes Association.

The drug stacked up equally to lifestyle interventions among DPP participants who had a history of GDM, but it’s important to appreciate that these interventions were intensive and that metformin is inexpensive, well tolerated, and “has a long safety record,” he said.
 

Results of follow-up out to 15 years

Of the more than 3,000 men and women enrolled in the landmark DPP, conducted during 1996-2001, 350 were women with a documented history of GDM and over 1,400 were women who had deliveries but no history of GDM. All participants had impaired glucose tolerance – defined for the trial as having both a fasting plasma glucose value of 95-125 mg/dL and a 2-hour value of 140-199 mg/dL after a 75-g glucose load – and were randomized to placebo, metformin, or intensive lifestyle intervention.

Metformin therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by approximately 50% in women with a history of GDM, compared with the placebo group – as did lifestyle – over 3 years. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was five. Women without a history of GDM, on the other hand, saw only a 14% reduction with metformin when compared with placebo (and a 49% reduction with lifestyle).

“In women with a history of GDM ... one pill twice a day for $4 a month worked as well as intensive lifestyle [change],” Dr. Ratner said, referring to the initial GDM-specific analysis of DPP data published in 2008 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93[12]:4774-9).

In a 10-year postrandomization follow-up, published in 2015, both metformin and lifestyle continued to be equally effective for the GDM group, reducing the progression to diabetes by 40% and 35%, respectively (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:1646-53). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was seven. (Among women without a history of GDM, metformin did not reduce progression to diabetes.)

A recent DPP Outcomes Study analysis of metformin’s impact on diabetes prevention at 15 years, moreover, showed a 41% risk reduction among women with a history of GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42[4]:601-8).
 

Advice on prescribing metformin prophylactically

Asked after his presentation whether women with a history of GDM and either an elevated fasting plasma glucose value or an elevated 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) value – or neither of the two – would benefit from taking metformin, Dr. Ratner said that “we’re stuck with inclusion criteria of the DPP, in which they had to meet both criteria ... What I’d say, though, is that not everyone with a history of GDM needs to be on metformin prophylactically. But [for women who have] prediabetes as defined by the ADA, the cost-benefit analysis points toward metformin.”

And with respect to early initiation and long-term use of the drug, “I would have absolutely no qualms about medicating a 25-year-old who had developed GDM and who in the postpartum period has prediabetes,” Dr. Ratner said during an open discussion. “She’s actually at the highest risk for developing type 2 very early.”

Kim Boggess, MD, who also presented on long-term use of metformin after GDM, said in the discussion period that she is often quick to recommend metformin therapy to her patients who have an elevated fasting plasma glucose value in the postpartum period, even when a 75-g oral GTT has not yet been performed. (The ADA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend completion of an oral GTT at 4-12 weeks postpartum after GDM.)

“I start them [on metformin] especially if they’ve had a cesarean section. Even 2, 3, 4 weeks of profound hyperglycemia could have potentially deleterious effects,” said Dr. Boggess, professor and maternal-fetal medicine program director at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “If someone comes in [shortly after] and looks like they have pristine control, then it might be worth stopping the metformin for 3-5 days (and retesting).”

Dr. Ratner said that, in this clinical scenario, he would first ensure that the fasting glucose value “is a true fasting glucose” and “if it’s substantially elevated – I’m talking 100, 105, 110 mg/dL – I’d start metformin, and I’m not even sure I’d do the GTT.” But, he advised, “if you’re going to do the GTT, I’d stop the metformin the day before.”

In her presentation, Dr. Boggess pointed out that metformin wasn’t shown to be superior to lifestyle interventions in the DPP for preventing progression to type 2 DM, and that some women are more motivated for intensive lifestyle change than others. The ADA recommends, in fact, that either metformin or lifestyle interventions be prescribed to women with a history of GDM who are found to have prediabetes.

What is needed, Dr. Boggess said, are more data on the effects of metformin on cardiovascular disease risk, as well as larger studies of metformin in the postpartum period “to help us determine the best dose.” Some research on metformin use in the postpartum period has reported gastrointestinal side effects and dissatisfaction, she noted.

Dr. Ratner said that metformin’s main drawback is the need for occasional testing of B₁₂ levels. Regarding weight loss and what was observed in the DPP, he said, women with a history of GDM who were randomized to intensive lifestyle interventions did not lose as much weight as women without a history of GDM.

Women who entered the DPP with a GDM history, he noted in his presentation, were essentially a “cohort of survivors.” They had an average age of 43 (compared with 52 years in the parous women without GDM) and a mean interval from the index GDM pregnancy of 11 years, which means that women with the highest risk of diabetes conversion were excluded, Dr. Ratner said.

Age was the only significantly different baseline characteristic between parous women with and without GDM, he noted. Women with a history of GDM who were randomized to placebo had a 71% higher incidence of diabetes than women without such a history – a striking natural history, Dr. Ratner said.

He and Dr. Boggess each reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest.

WASHINGTON – Metformin’s role in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus has been firmly established by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial – most recently, by 15-year follow-up data reported this year – and the drug should be front and center for clinicians who hope to stave off the “remarkable” incidence of type 2 diabetes after GDM, Robert E. Ratner, MD, maintained at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

The DPP included “the single largest population of women with a history of GDM that’s been looked at in a randomized controlled trial,” and considering its multiethnic population, the trial offers a reliable representative sample to ponder today when evaluating long-term use of metformin after GDM, said Dr. Ratner, a principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored DPP and the DPP Outcomes Study and a former chief scientific & medical officer for the American Diabetes Association.

The drug stacked up equally to lifestyle interventions among DPP participants who had a history of GDM, but it’s important to appreciate that these interventions were intensive and that metformin is inexpensive, well tolerated, and “has a long safety record,” he said.
 

Results of follow-up out to 15 years

Of the more than 3,000 men and women enrolled in the landmark DPP, conducted during 1996-2001, 350 were women with a documented history of GDM and over 1,400 were women who had deliveries but no history of GDM. All participants had impaired glucose tolerance – defined for the trial as having both a fasting plasma glucose value of 95-125 mg/dL and a 2-hour value of 140-199 mg/dL after a 75-g glucose load – and were randomized to placebo, metformin, or intensive lifestyle intervention.

Metformin therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by approximately 50% in women with a history of GDM, compared with the placebo group – as did lifestyle – over 3 years. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was five. Women without a history of GDM, on the other hand, saw only a 14% reduction with metformin when compared with placebo (and a 49% reduction with lifestyle).

“In women with a history of GDM ... one pill twice a day for $4 a month worked as well as intensive lifestyle [change],” Dr. Ratner said, referring to the initial GDM-specific analysis of DPP data published in 2008 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93[12]:4774-9).

In a 10-year postrandomization follow-up, published in 2015, both metformin and lifestyle continued to be equally effective for the GDM group, reducing the progression to diabetes by 40% and 35%, respectively (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:1646-53). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was seven. (Among women without a history of GDM, metformin did not reduce progression to diabetes.)

A recent DPP Outcomes Study analysis of metformin’s impact on diabetes prevention at 15 years, moreover, showed a 41% risk reduction among women with a history of GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42[4]:601-8).
 

Advice on prescribing metformin prophylactically

Asked after his presentation whether women with a history of GDM and either an elevated fasting plasma glucose value or an elevated 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) value – or neither of the two – would benefit from taking metformin, Dr. Ratner said that “we’re stuck with inclusion criteria of the DPP, in which they had to meet both criteria ... What I’d say, though, is that not everyone with a history of GDM needs to be on metformin prophylactically. But [for women who have] prediabetes as defined by the ADA, the cost-benefit analysis points toward metformin.”

And with respect to early initiation and long-term use of the drug, “I would have absolutely no qualms about medicating a 25-year-old who had developed GDM and who in the postpartum period has prediabetes,” Dr. Ratner said during an open discussion. “She’s actually at the highest risk for developing type 2 very early.”

Kim Boggess, MD, who also presented on long-term use of metformin after GDM, said in the discussion period that she is often quick to recommend metformin therapy to her patients who have an elevated fasting plasma glucose value in the postpartum period, even when a 75-g oral GTT has not yet been performed. (The ADA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend completion of an oral GTT at 4-12 weeks postpartum after GDM.)

“I start them [on metformin] especially if they’ve had a cesarean section. Even 2, 3, 4 weeks of profound hyperglycemia could have potentially deleterious effects,” said Dr. Boggess, professor and maternal-fetal medicine program director at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “If someone comes in [shortly after] and looks like they have pristine control, then it might be worth stopping the metformin for 3-5 days (and retesting).”

Dr. Ratner said that, in this clinical scenario, he would first ensure that the fasting glucose value “is a true fasting glucose” and “if it’s substantially elevated – I’m talking 100, 105, 110 mg/dL – I’d start metformin, and I’m not even sure I’d do the GTT.” But, he advised, “if you’re going to do the GTT, I’d stop the metformin the day before.”

In her presentation, Dr. Boggess pointed out that metformin wasn’t shown to be superior to lifestyle interventions in the DPP for preventing progression to type 2 DM, and that some women are more motivated for intensive lifestyle change than others. The ADA recommends, in fact, that either metformin or lifestyle interventions be prescribed to women with a history of GDM who are found to have prediabetes.

What is needed, Dr. Boggess said, are more data on the effects of metformin on cardiovascular disease risk, as well as larger studies of metformin in the postpartum period “to help us determine the best dose.” Some research on metformin use in the postpartum period has reported gastrointestinal side effects and dissatisfaction, she noted.

Dr. Ratner said that metformin’s main drawback is the need for occasional testing of B₁₂ levels. Regarding weight loss and what was observed in the DPP, he said, women with a history of GDM who were randomized to intensive lifestyle interventions did not lose as much weight as women without a history of GDM.

Women who entered the DPP with a GDM history, he noted in his presentation, were essentially a “cohort of survivors.” They had an average age of 43 (compared with 52 years in the parous women without GDM) and a mean interval from the index GDM pregnancy of 11 years, which means that women with the highest risk of diabetes conversion were excluded, Dr. Ratner said.

Age was the only significantly different baseline characteristic between parous women with and without GDM, he noted. Women with a history of GDM who were randomized to placebo had a 71% higher incidence of diabetes than women without such a history – a striking natural history, Dr. Ratner said.

He and Dr. Boggess each reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest.

WASHINGTON – Metformin’s role in preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus has been firmly established by the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial – most recently, by 15-year follow-up data reported this year – and the drug should be front and center for clinicians who hope to stave off the “remarkable” incidence of type 2 diabetes after GDM, Robert E. Ratner, MD, maintained at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

The DPP included “the single largest population of women with a history of GDM that’s been looked at in a randomized controlled trial,” and considering its multiethnic population, the trial offers a reliable representative sample to ponder today when evaluating long-term use of metformin after GDM, said Dr. Ratner, a principal investigator of the National Institutes of Health–sponsored DPP and the DPP Outcomes Study and a former chief scientific & medical officer for the American Diabetes Association.

The drug stacked up equally to lifestyle interventions among DPP participants who had a history of GDM, but it’s important to appreciate that these interventions were intensive and that metformin is inexpensive, well tolerated, and “has a long safety record,” he said.
 

Results of follow-up out to 15 years

Of the more than 3,000 men and women enrolled in the landmark DPP, conducted during 1996-2001, 350 were women with a documented history of GDM and over 1,400 were women who had deliveries but no history of GDM. All participants had impaired glucose tolerance – defined for the trial as having both a fasting plasma glucose value of 95-125 mg/dL and a 2-hour value of 140-199 mg/dL after a 75-g glucose load – and were randomized to placebo, metformin, or intensive lifestyle intervention.

Metformin therapy reduced the incidence of diabetes by approximately 50% in women with a history of GDM, compared with the placebo group – as did lifestyle – over 3 years. The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was five. Women without a history of GDM, on the other hand, saw only a 14% reduction with metformin when compared with placebo (and a 49% reduction with lifestyle).

“In women with a history of GDM ... one pill twice a day for $4 a month worked as well as intensive lifestyle [change],” Dr. Ratner said, referring to the initial GDM-specific analysis of DPP data published in 2008 (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93[12]:4774-9).

In a 10-year postrandomization follow-up, published in 2015, both metformin and lifestyle continued to be equally effective for the GDM group, reducing the progression to diabetes by 40% and 35%, respectively (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:1646-53). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of diabetes was seven. (Among women without a history of GDM, metformin did not reduce progression to diabetes.)

A recent DPP Outcomes Study analysis of metformin’s impact on diabetes prevention at 15 years, moreover, showed a 41% risk reduction among women with a history of GDM (Diabetes Care. 2019;42[4]:601-8).
 

Advice on prescribing metformin prophylactically

Asked after his presentation whether women with a history of GDM and either an elevated fasting plasma glucose value or an elevated 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) value – or neither of the two – would benefit from taking metformin, Dr. Ratner said that “we’re stuck with inclusion criteria of the DPP, in which they had to meet both criteria ... What I’d say, though, is that not everyone with a history of GDM needs to be on metformin prophylactically. But [for women who have] prediabetes as defined by the ADA, the cost-benefit analysis points toward metformin.”

And with respect to early initiation and long-term use of the drug, “I would have absolutely no qualms about medicating a 25-year-old who had developed GDM and who in the postpartum period has prediabetes,” Dr. Ratner said during an open discussion. “She’s actually at the highest risk for developing type 2 very early.”

Kim Boggess, MD, who also presented on long-term use of metformin after GDM, said in the discussion period that she is often quick to recommend metformin therapy to her patients who have an elevated fasting plasma glucose value in the postpartum period, even when a 75-g oral GTT has not yet been performed. (The ADA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend completion of an oral GTT at 4-12 weeks postpartum after GDM.)

“I start them [on metformin] especially if they’ve had a cesarean section. Even 2, 3, 4 weeks of profound hyperglycemia could have potentially deleterious effects,” said Dr. Boggess, professor and maternal-fetal medicine program director at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “If someone comes in [shortly after] and looks like they have pristine control, then it might be worth stopping the metformin for 3-5 days (and retesting).”

Dr. Ratner said that, in this clinical scenario, he would first ensure that the fasting glucose value “is a true fasting glucose” and “if it’s substantially elevated – I’m talking 100, 105, 110 mg/dL – I’d start metformin, and I’m not even sure I’d do the GTT.” But, he advised, “if you’re going to do the GTT, I’d stop the metformin the day before.”

In her presentation, Dr. Boggess pointed out that metformin wasn’t shown to be superior to lifestyle interventions in the DPP for preventing progression to type 2 DM, and that some women are more motivated for intensive lifestyle change than others. The ADA recommends, in fact, that either metformin or lifestyle interventions be prescribed to women with a history of GDM who are found to have prediabetes.

What is needed, Dr. Boggess said, are more data on the effects of metformin on cardiovascular disease risk, as well as larger studies of metformin in the postpartum period “to help us determine the best dose.” Some research on metformin use in the postpartum period has reported gastrointestinal side effects and dissatisfaction, she noted.

Dr. Ratner said that metformin’s main drawback is the need for occasional testing of B₁₂ levels. Regarding weight loss and what was observed in the DPP, he said, women with a history of GDM who were randomized to intensive lifestyle interventions did not lose as much weight as women without a history of GDM.

Women who entered the DPP with a GDM history, he noted in his presentation, were essentially a “cohort of survivors.” They had an average age of 43 (compared with 52 years in the parous women without GDM) and a mean interval from the index GDM pregnancy of 11 years, which means that women with the highest risk of diabetes conversion were excluded, Dr. Ratner said.

Age was the only significantly different baseline characteristic between parous women with and without GDM, he noted. Women with a history of GDM who were randomized to placebo had a 71% higher incidence of diabetes than women without such a history – a striking natural history, Dr. Ratner said.

He and Dr. Boggess each reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest.

BOSTON – For treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cotadutide, licogliflozin, tropifexor, saroglitazar, and PF-05221304 are just a few of the drugs with promising data, Kathleen E. Corey, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

By contrast, selonsertib and emricasan did not achieve their endpoints in studies described here at the meeting, “but we have a lot to learn from them,” said Dr. Corey, director of the Mass General Fatty Liver Clinic and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This is an exciting time,” Dr. Corey said in a special debriefing oral session held on the final day of the conference. “There are many novel mechanisms of action out there, as well as some known mechanisms of action, with a considerable amount of promise.”
 

Cotadutide (MEDI0382)

Narha and coauthors (Abstract 35) described the effects of cotadutide, a GLP-1/glucagon receptor dual agonist on biomarkers of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) at 26 weeks in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In the randomized, phase 2b study, cotadutide produced superior reductions versus liraglutide, the GLP-1 receptor agonist, in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and body weight, which investigators said supported prospective trials of the drug for a potential indication in NASH.

“The adverse events were fairly typical for what we see with the GLP-1s – GI side effects that usually over 8 weeks improve,” Dr. Corey told attendees at the debrief session.
 

Licogliflozin (LIK066)

Interim analysis of a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study showed that this SGLT1/2 inhibitor produced “robust” decreases in ALT and improvements in markers of hepatic and metabolic health in patients with NASH, according to Zhang and coauthors (Abstract L07).

Some 67% of those who received licogliflozin had at least a 30% decrease in their liver fat, while decreases in weight and hemoglobin A_1c were also reported, according to Dr. Corey. “It was associated with diarrhea in about 97%, but this was considered mild, and certainly, we’re seeing good metabolic effects overall,” she said.
 

Tropifexor

Treatment for 12 weeks with this potent FXR agonist resulted in robust, dose-dependent reductions in hepatic fat and serum ALT in patients with fibrotic NASH, according to investigators in a phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trial known as FLIGHT-FXR (Abstract L04).

A total of 65% of patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in liver fat, and decreases in weight and insulin resistance were reported. “Similar to other FXRs, they did have this concerning although potentially manageable increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, and the adverse event of pruritis,” said Dr. Corey.
 

Saroglitazar

Gawrieh and coauthors presented results from EVIDENCES IV, a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of saroglitazar, a novel dual peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR) alpha/gamma agonist, in patients with NAFLD or NASH (Abstract LO10).

The investigators found that 41% of patients achieved a 30% or greater relative reduction in liver fat, as well as reductions in hemoglobin A_1c and lipids, but the treatment was “weight neutral,” Dr. Corey said, adding that no serious adverse events were reported.
 

PF-05221304

This liver-targeted acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor (ACCI) demonstrated robust reduction in liver fat and ALT in a 16-week phase 2a, dose-ranging study in adults with NAFLD, according to Amin and coinvestigators (Abstract 31).

There was a “dramatic” decrease in liver fat in this study, said Dr. Corey, with 90% of treated patients experiencing a 30% or greater decrease. Side effects included a “significant” increase in triglycerides, she added, as well as transient increases in ALT and AST.
 

Selonsertib and emricasan

One agent not meeting study endpoints was selonsertib, an apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 (ASK1) inhibitor. While safe and well tolerated, the drug was nevertheless not effective as monotherapy in phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials including patients with advanced fibrosis due to NASH, investigators said (Abstract 64). Currently, the agent is being evaluated in combination with firsocostat – an ACCI – in a phase 2 study called ATLAS, according to the authors.

Emricasan, an oral pan-caspase inhibitor that suppresses apoptosis, did not improve fibrosis or resolve NASH in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, and may have even worsened histology, according to Dr. Corey. Investigators said further evaluation of the mechanisms underlying findings could provide insights into the role of necro-apoptosis in NASH pathophysiology (Abstract 61).

Dr. Corey provided disclosures related to BMS, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gilead.

BOSTON – For treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cotadutide, licogliflozin, tropifexor, saroglitazar, and PF-05221304 are just a few of the drugs with promising data, Kathleen E. Corey, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

By contrast, selonsertib and emricasan did not achieve their endpoints in studies described here at the meeting, “but we have a lot to learn from them,” said Dr. Corey, director of the Mass General Fatty Liver Clinic and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This is an exciting time,” Dr. Corey said in a special debriefing oral session held on the final day of the conference. “There are many novel mechanisms of action out there, as well as some known mechanisms of action, with a considerable amount of promise.”
 

Cotadutide (MEDI0382)

Narha and coauthors (Abstract 35) described the effects of cotadutide, a GLP-1/glucagon receptor dual agonist on biomarkers of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) at 26 weeks in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In the randomized, phase 2b study, cotadutide produced superior reductions versus liraglutide, the GLP-1 receptor agonist, in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and body weight, which investigators said supported prospective trials of the drug for a potential indication in NASH.

“The adverse events were fairly typical for what we see with the GLP-1s – GI side effects that usually over 8 weeks improve,” Dr. Corey told attendees at the debrief session.
 

Licogliflozin (LIK066)

Interim analysis of a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study showed that this SGLT1/2 inhibitor produced “robust” decreases in ALT and improvements in markers of hepatic and metabolic health in patients with NASH, according to Zhang and coauthors (Abstract L07).

Some 67% of those who received licogliflozin had at least a 30% decrease in their liver fat, while decreases in weight and hemoglobin A_1c were also reported, according to Dr. Corey. “It was associated with diarrhea in about 97%, but this was considered mild, and certainly, we’re seeing good metabolic effects overall,” she said.
 

Tropifexor

Treatment for 12 weeks with this potent FXR agonist resulted in robust, dose-dependent reductions in hepatic fat and serum ALT in patients with fibrotic NASH, according to investigators in a phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trial known as FLIGHT-FXR (Abstract L04).

A total of 65% of patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in liver fat, and decreases in weight and insulin resistance were reported. “Similar to other FXRs, they did have this concerning although potentially manageable increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, and the adverse event of pruritis,” said Dr. Corey.
 

Saroglitazar

Gawrieh and coauthors presented results from EVIDENCES IV, a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of saroglitazar, a novel dual peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR) alpha/gamma agonist, in patients with NAFLD or NASH (Abstract LO10).

The investigators found that 41% of patients achieved a 30% or greater relative reduction in liver fat, as well as reductions in hemoglobin A_1c and lipids, but the treatment was “weight neutral,” Dr. Corey said, adding that no serious adverse events were reported.
 

PF-05221304

This liver-targeted acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor (ACCI) demonstrated robust reduction in liver fat and ALT in a 16-week phase 2a, dose-ranging study in adults with NAFLD, according to Amin and coinvestigators (Abstract 31).

There was a “dramatic” decrease in liver fat in this study, said Dr. Corey, with 90% of treated patients experiencing a 30% or greater decrease. Side effects included a “significant” increase in triglycerides, she added, as well as transient increases in ALT and AST.
 

Selonsertib and emricasan

One agent not meeting study endpoints was selonsertib, an apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 (ASK1) inhibitor. While safe and well tolerated, the drug was nevertheless not effective as monotherapy in phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials including patients with advanced fibrosis due to NASH, investigators said (Abstract 64). Currently, the agent is being evaluated in combination with firsocostat – an ACCI – in a phase 2 study called ATLAS, according to the authors.

Emricasan, an oral pan-caspase inhibitor that suppresses apoptosis, did not improve fibrosis or resolve NASH in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, and may have even worsened histology, according to Dr. Corey. Investigators said further evaluation of the mechanisms underlying findings could provide insights into the role of necro-apoptosis in NASH pathophysiology (Abstract 61).

Dr. Corey provided disclosures related to BMS, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gilead.

BOSTON – For treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cotadutide, licogliflozin, tropifexor, saroglitazar, and PF-05221304 are just a few of the drugs with promising data, Kathleen E. Corey, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

By contrast, selonsertib and emricasan did not achieve their endpoints in studies described here at the meeting, “but we have a lot to learn from them,” said Dr. Corey, director of the Mass General Fatty Liver Clinic and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“This is an exciting time,” Dr. Corey said in a special debriefing oral session held on the final day of the conference. “There are many novel mechanisms of action out there, as well as some known mechanisms of action, with a considerable amount of promise.”
 

Cotadutide (MEDI0382)

Narha and coauthors (Abstract 35) described the effects of cotadutide, a GLP-1/glucagon receptor dual agonist on biomarkers of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) at 26 weeks in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In the randomized, phase 2b study, cotadutide produced superior reductions versus liraglutide, the GLP-1 receptor agonist, in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and body weight, which investigators said supported prospective trials of the drug for a potential indication in NASH.

“The adverse events were fairly typical for what we see with the GLP-1s – GI side effects that usually over 8 weeks improve,” Dr. Corey told attendees at the debrief session.
 

Licogliflozin (LIK066)

Interim analysis of a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study showed that this SGLT1/2 inhibitor produced “robust” decreases in ALT and improvements in markers of hepatic and metabolic health in patients with NASH, according to Zhang and coauthors (Abstract L07).

Some 67% of those who received licogliflozin had at least a 30% decrease in their liver fat, while decreases in weight and hemoglobin A_1c were also reported, according to Dr. Corey. “It was associated with diarrhea in about 97%, but this was considered mild, and certainly, we’re seeing good metabolic effects overall,” she said.
 

Tropifexor

Treatment for 12 weeks with this potent FXR agonist resulted in robust, dose-dependent reductions in hepatic fat and serum ALT in patients with fibrotic NASH, according to investigators in a phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trial known as FLIGHT-FXR (Abstract L04).

A total of 65% of patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in liver fat, and decreases in weight and insulin resistance were reported. “Similar to other FXRs, they did have this concerning although potentially manageable increase in low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, and the adverse event of pruritis,” said Dr. Corey.
 

Saroglitazar

Gawrieh and coauthors presented results from EVIDENCES IV, a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of saroglitazar, a novel dual peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR) alpha/gamma agonist, in patients with NAFLD or NASH (Abstract LO10).

The investigators found that 41% of patients achieved a 30% or greater relative reduction in liver fat, as well as reductions in hemoglobin A_1c and lipids, but the treatment was “weight neutral,” Dr. Corey said, adding that no serious adverse events were reported.
 

PF-05221304

This liver-targeted acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor (ACCI) demonstrated robust reduction in liver fat and ALT in a 16-week phase 2a, dose-ranging study in adults with NAFLD, according to Amin and coinvestigators (Abstract 31).

There was a “dramatic” decrease in liver fat in this study, said Dr. Corey, with 90% of treated patients experiencing a 30% or greater decrease. Side effects included a “significant” increase in triglycerides, she added, as well as transient increases in ALT and AST.
 

Selonsertib and emricasan

One agent not meeting study endpoints was selonsertib, an apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 (ASK1) inhibitor. While safe and well tolerated, the drug was nevertheless not effective as monotherapy in phase 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials including patients with advanced fibrosis due to NASH, investigators said (Abstract 64). Currently, the agent is being evaluated in combination with firsocostat – an ACCI – in a phase 2 study called ATLAS, according to the authors.

Emricasan, an oral pan-caspase inhibitor that suppresses apoptosis, did not improve fibrosis or resolve NASH in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, and may have even worsened histology, according to Dr. Corey. Investigators said further evaluation of the mechanisms underlying findings could provide insights into the role of necro-apoptosis in NASH pathophysiology (Abstract 61).

Dr. Corey provided disclosures related to BMS, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gilead.

WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And adverse pregnancy outcomes can have long-lasting residual effects.”

Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.

An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.

The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).

HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.

Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).

Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”

The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
 

Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data

The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.

Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.

An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).

The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.

Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.

Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.

“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”

Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
 

Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care

Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.

Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).

On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.

At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.

A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).

Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.

A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).

“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”

For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.

Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.

WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And adverse pregnancy outcomes can have long-lasting residual effects.”

Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.

An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.

The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).

HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.

Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).

Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”

The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
 

Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data

The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.

Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.

An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).

The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.

Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.

Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.

“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”

Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
 

Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care

Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.

Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).

On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.

At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.

A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).

Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.

A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).

“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”

For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.

Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.

WASHINGTON – Cardiovascular risk factors may be elevated “as soon as the first postpartum year” in women who have gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, recent findings have affirmed, Deborah B. Ehrenthal, MD, MPH, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images

Dr. Ehrenthal was one of several researchers who urged innovative strategies and improved care coordination to boost women’s follow-up after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and other adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications. “The metabolic stress of pregnancy can uncover underlying susceptibilities,” she said. “And adverse pregnancy outcomes can have long-lasting residual effects.”

Evidence that adverse pregnancy outcomes – including GDM and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) – can elevate cardiovascular risk comes most recently from the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study – Monitoring Mothers to be Heart Health Study (nuMoM2b–HHS study), a prospective observational cohort that followed 4,484 women 2-7 years after their first pregnancy. Women had a follow-up exam, with blood pressure and anthropometric measurements and clinical/biological testing, an average of 3 years post partum.

An analysis published in October 2019 in the Journal of the American Heart Association shows that women with HDP (including preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) had a relative risk of hypertension of 2.5 at follow-up, compared with women without HDP. Women who had preeclampsia specifically were 2.3 times as likely as were women who did not have preeclampsia to have incident hypertension at follow-up, said Dr. Ehrenthal, a coinvestigator of the study.

The analysis focused on incident hypertension as the primary outcome, and adjusted for age, body mass index, and other important cardiovascular disease risk factors, she noted. Researchers utilized the diagnostic threshold for hypertension extant at the time of study design: A systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or greater, or a diastolic BP of 90 mm Hg or greater (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8:e013092).

HDP was the most common adverse pregnancy outcome in the nuMoM2b–HHS study (14%). Among all participants, 4% had GDM. Approximately 82% had neither HDP nor GDM. Other adverse pregnancy outcomes included in the analysis were preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and stillbirth.

Additional preliminary estimates presented by Dr. Ehrenthal show that, based on the new (2017) lower threshold for hypertension – 130 mg Hg systolic or 80 mm Hg diastolic – the disorder afflicted 37% of women who had experienced HDP (relative risk 2.1), and 32% of women who had GDM (RR 1.8). Prediabetes/diabetes (using a fasting blood glucose threshold of 100 mg/dL) at follow-up affected an estimated 21% of women who had HDP (RR 1.4) and 38% of women who had GDM (RR 2.5).

Notably, across the entire study cohort, 20% had hypertension at follow-up, “which is extraordinary” considering the short time frame from pregnancy and the young age of the study population – a mean maternal age of 27 years, said Dr. Ehrenthal, associate professor of population health sciences and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Also across the cohort, 15% had prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up. “We need to think about women more generally,” she cautioned. “While we recognize the significant elevated risk of HDP and GDM [for the development of subsequent hypertension and cardiovascular risk], we will miss a lot of women [if we focus only on the history of HDP and GDM.]”

The majority of women found to have hypertension or prediabetes/diabetes at follow-up had experienced neither HDP nor GDM, but a good many of them (47% of those who had hypertension and 47% of those found to have prediabetes/diabetes) had a BMI of 30 or above, Dr. Ehrenthal said at the DPSG-NA meeting.
 

Nurses Health Study, hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome follow-up data

The new findings from the nuMoM2b–HHS study add to a robust and growing body of evidence that pregnancy is an important window to future health, and that follow up and screening after GDM and HDP are crucial.

Regarding GDM specifically, “there’s quite a bit of literature by now demonstrating that GDM history is a risk factor for hypertension, even 1-2 years post partum, and that the risk is elevated as well for dyslipidemia and vascular dysfunction,” Deirdre K. Tobias, D.Sc., an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of nutrition at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said at the DPSG meeting.

An analysis of the Nurses Health Study II (NHS II) cohort published in 2017 found a 40% higher relative risk of cardiovascular disease events (largely myocardial infarction) in women who had GDM, compared with women who did not have GDM over a median follow-up of 26 years. This was after adjustments were made for age, time since pregnancy, menopausal status, family history of MI or stroke, hypertension in pregnancy, white race/ethnicity, prepregnancy BMI, and other factors (JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177[12]:1735-42).

The NHS data also have shown, however, that the elevated risk for cardiovascular disease after a GDM pregnancy “can be mitigated by adopting a healthy lifestyle,” said Dr. Tobias, lead author of the 2017 NHS II analysis. Adjustments for postpregnancy weight gain and lifestyle factors attenuated the relative risk of cardiovascular disease events after a GDM pregnancy to a 30% increased risk.

Dr. Tobias and colleagues currently are looking within the NHS cohort for “metabolomic signatures” or signals – various amino acid and lipid metabolites – to identify the progression of GDM to type 2 diabetes. Metabolomics “may help further refine our understanding of the long-term links between GDM and prevention of type 2 diabetes and of cardiovascular disease in mothers,” she said.

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Follow-Up Study, in the meantime, is documenting associations of maternal glucose levels during pregnancy not only with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes 10-14 years later, but also with measures of cardiovascular risk in mothers 10-14 years later.

Just as perinatal outcomes were strongly associated with glucose as a continuous variable in the original HAPO study, “it’s clear there’s a progressive increase in the risk of [later] disorders of glucose metabolism as [fasting blood glucose levels and 1- and-2-hour glucose values] in pregnancy are higher,” said Boyd E. Metzger, MD, the Tom D. Spies emeritus professor of metabolism and nutrition at Northwestern University, Chicago, and principal investigator of the original HAPO study and its follow up.

“Another message is that the more normal you are in pregnancy, the more normal you will be many years later. Good values [during pregnancy] produce good outcomes.”

Currently unpublished data from the HAPO Follow-Up Study are being analyzed, but it appears thus far that GDM is not associated with hypertension (per the old diagnostic threshold) in this cohort after adjustment for maternal age, BMI, smoking, and family history of hypertension. GDM appears to be a significant risk factor for dyslipidemia, however. HDL cholesterol at follow-up was significantly lower for mothers who had GDM compared with those without, whereas LDL cholesterol and triglycerides at follow-up were significantly higher for mothers with GDM, Dr. Metzger said.
 

Racial/ethnic disparities, postpartum care

Neither long-term study – the NHS II or the HAPO Follow-Up Study – has looked at racial and ethnic differences. The HAPO cohort is racially-ethnically diverse but the NHS II cohort is predominantly white women.

Research suggests that GDM is a heterogeneous condition with some unique phenotypes in subgroups that vary by race and ethnicity. And just as there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the pathophysiology of GDM, there appear to be racial-ethnic differences in the progression to type 2 diabetes – a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease, said Monique Henderson, PhD, a research scientist at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC).

On the broadest level, while Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of GDM, African Americans have the highest rates of progressing to type 2 diabetes, Dr. Henderson said. Disparities “may [stem from] metabolic differences in terms of insulin resistance and secretion that are different between pregnancy and the postpartum period, and that might vary [across racial-ethnic subgroups],” she said. Lifestyle differences and variation in postpartum screening rates also may play a role.

At KPNC, where women with GDM receive calls and letters reminding them of the need for postpartum screening, only 48% overall completed an oral glucose tolerance test at 4-12 weeks post partum, as recommended by both the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Both before and after adjustment for education, attendance at a postpartum visit, and other variables, Chinese women were most likely to have screening, and black women were least likely, said Dr. Henderson, referring to ongoing research.

A study Dr. Ehrenthal led of women with GDM or HDP recruited from the postpartum service of a large community-based, academic obstetrical hospital in Delaware showed that while nearly all women attended a 6-week postpartum visit with their ob.gyns., 59% of women with GDM had not yet completed diabetes screening when they were interviewed 3 months post partum. Most women with HDP indicated they had follow-up blood pressure testing, and just over half of women with either diagnosis recalled having ever had lipid testing (J Women’s Health 2014;23[9]:760-4).

Women least likely to complete screening tests were those who had no college education, those who had less than a high school level of health literacy, and those who were not privately insured, Dr. Ehrenthal said.

A large national study of privately insured women also found low rates of follow-up testing, however. While the majority of women with GDM had a postpartum visit with an obstetrician or primary care physician within a year after delivery, only a minority of women had a glycemic screening test completed (Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128[1]:159-67).

“We can’t place the blame on women,” Dr. Ehrenthal said. “We need increased attention to screening,” including screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors, and a “deliberate hand-off to primary care.”

For follow-up cardiovascular disease risk factor assessment after HDP, ACOG recommends periodic (perhaps annually) assessment and referral for treatment as needed, and the cardiology professional organizations recommend that pregnancy history be considered when assessing risk in order to decide on lipid treatment, she noted.

Each of the speakers reported that they have no financial or other interests that pose a conflict of interest. The HAPO Follow-Up Study is funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the nuMoM2b–HHS study has been funded by several National Institutes of Health institutes and other programs and initiatives.