Diabetes

People who eat red meat or processed meat should continue their current meat consumption, according to recent guidelines from an international panel that were recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Fuse/Thinkstock

This recommendation was based on the panel having found “low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in unprocessed red meat may have little or no effect on the risk for major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.” Additionally, meta-analysis results from 23 cohort studies provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that decreasing unprocessed red meat intake may result in a very small reduction in the risk for major cardiovascular outcomes and type 2 diabetes, with no statistically differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, the guidelines say.

“Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible,” Bradley C. Johnston, PhD, of the department of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in their paper summarizing the panel’s guidelines.

The evidence Dr. Johnston and colleagues examined were from four systematic reviews analyzing the health effects of red meat and processed meat consumption in randomized trials and meta-analyses of cohort studies as well as one systematic review that identified how people viewed their consumption of meat and values surrounding meat consumption.

In one review of 12 randomized trials examining diets of high and low red meat consumption, a diet consisting of low red meat had little effect on cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.06), cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05), all-cause mortality (0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03) and total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01), including on colorectal cancer or breast cancer (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0622). A different review of observational cohort studies with more than 1,000 participants found “very-small or possibly small decreases” in all-cause mortality, incidence, and all-cause mortality of cancer, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease and MI, and type 2 diabetes for patients who had a diet low in red meat or processed meat (Vernooij R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1583); a second review by Zeraatkar and colleagues of 55 observational cohort studies with more than 4 million participants found three servings of unprocessed red meat and processed meat per week was associated with a “very small reduction” in risk for MI, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326). Another systematic review of 56 observational cohort studies found three servings of unprocessed red meat per week was associated with a slight reduction in overall cancer mortality (Han MA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0699).

The authors also performed a systematic review of participant preferences and values regarding meat consumption. The evidence from 54 qualitative studies showed omnivores preferred eating meat, considered it part of a healthy diet, “lack[ed] the skills needed” to prepare meals without meat, and were mostly unwilling to change their meat consumption (Valli C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326).

“There was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of three servings of red or processed meat per week,” Dr. Johnston and colleagues wrote in their guidelines. If the very-small exposure effect is true, given peoples’ attachment to their meat-based diet, the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples’ values and preferences related to meat.”

The authors noted they did not examine factors such as cost, acceptability, feasibility, equity, environmental impact, and views on animal welfare when creating the guidelines. In addition, the low level of evidence from the randomized trials and observational studies means that the potential benefits of reducing red meat or processed meat intake may not outweigh the cultural and personal preferences or quality of life issues that could arise from changing one’s diet.

“This assessment may be excessively pessimistic; indeed, we hope that is the case,” they said. “What is certain is that generating higher-quality evidence regarding the magnitude of any causal effect of meat consumption on health outcomes will test the ingenuity and imagination of health science investigators.”

Dr. El Dib reported receiving funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University. Dr. de Souza reports relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and the World Health Organization in the forms of personal fees, grants, and speakers bureau and board of directorship appointments. Dr. Patel reports receiving grants and person fees from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, the National Science Foundation, XY.health, doc.ai, Janssen, and the CDC.

SOURCE: Johnston B et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1621.

People who eat red meat or processed meat should continue their current meat consumption, according to recent guidelines from an international panel that were recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Fuse/Thinkstock

This recommendation was based on the panel having found “low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in unprocessed red meat may have little or no effect on the risk for major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.” Additionally, meta-analysis results from 23 cohort studies provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that decreasing unprocessed red meat intake may result in a very small reduction in the risk for major cardiovascular outcomes and type 2 diabetes, with no statistically differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, the guidelines say.

“Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible,” Bradley C. Johnston, PhD, of the department of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in their paper summarizing the panel’s guidelines.

The evidence Dr. Johnston and colleagues examined were from four systematic reviews analyzing the health effects of red meat and processed meat consumption in randomized trials and meta-analyses of cohort studies as well as one systematic review that identified how people viewed their consumption of meat and values surrounding meat consumption.

In one review of 12 randomized trials examining diets of high and low red meat consumption, a diet consisting of low red meat had little effect on cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.06), cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05), all-cause mortality (0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03) and total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01), including on colorectal cancer or breast cancer (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0622). A different review of observational cohort studies with more than 1,000 participants found “very-small or possibly small decreases” in all-cause mortality, incidence, and all-cause mortality of cancer, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease and MI, and type 2 diabetes for patients who had a diet low in red meat or processed meat (Vernooij R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1583); a second review by Zeraatkar and colleagues of 55 observational cohort studies with more than 4 million participants found three servings of unprocessed red meat and processed meat per week was associated with a “very small reduction” in risk for MI, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326). Another systematic review of 56 observational cohort studies found three servings of unprocessed red meat per week was associated with a slight reduction in overall cancer mortality (Han MA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0699).

The authors also performed a systematic review of participant preferences and values regarding meat consumption. The evidence from 54 qualitative studies showed omnivores preferred eating meat, considered it part of a healthy diet, “lack[ed] the skills needed” to prepare meals without meat, and were mostly unwilling to change their meat consumption (Valli C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326).

“There was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of three servings of red or processed meat per week,” Dr. Johnston and colleagues wrote in their guidelines. If the very-small exposure effect is true, given peoples’ attachment to their meat-based diet, the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples’ values and preferences related to meat.”

The authors noted they did not examine factors such as cost, acceptability, feasibility, equity, environmental impact, and views on animal welfare when creating the guidelines. In addition, the low level of evidence from the randomized trials and observational studies means that the potential benefits of reducing red meat or processed meat intake may not outweigh the cultural and personal preferences or quality of life issues that could arise from changing one’s diet.

“This assessment may be excessively pessimistic; indeed, we hope that is the case,” they said. “What is certain is that generating higher-quality evidence regarding the magnitude of any causal effect of meat consumption on health outcomes will test the ingenuity and imagination of health science investigators.”

Dr. El Dib reported receiving funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University. Dr. de Souza reports relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and the World Health Organization in the forms of personal fees, grants, and speakers bureau and board of directorship appointments. Dr. Patel reports receiving grants and person fees from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, the National Science Foundation, XY.health, doc.ai, Janssen, and the CDC.

SOURCE: Johnston B et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1621.

People who eat red meat or processed meat should continue their current meat consumption, according to recent guidelines from an international panel that were recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Fuse/Thinkstock

This recommendation was based on the panel having found “low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in unprocessed red meat may have little or no effect on the risk for major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.” Additionally, meta-analysis results from 23 cohort studies provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that decreasing unprocessed red meat intake may result in a very small reduction in the risk for major cardiovascular outcomes and type 2 diabetes, with no statistically differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, the guidelines say.

“Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible,” Bradley C. Johnston, PhD, of the department of community health and epidemiology at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and colleagues wrote in their paper summarizing the panel’s guidelines.

The evidence Dr. Johnston and colleagues examined were from four systematic reviews analyzing the health effects of red meat and processed meat consumption in randomized trials and meta-analyses of cohort studies as well as one systematic review that identified how people viewed their consumption of meat and values surrounding meat consumption.

In one review of 12 randomized trials examining diets of high and low red meat consumption, a diet consisting of low red meat had little effect on cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.06), cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.05), all-cause mortality (0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.03) and total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.89-1.01), including on colorectal cancer or breast cancer (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0622). A different review of observational cohort studies with more than 1,000 participants found “very-small or possibly small decreases” in all-cause mortality, incidence, and all-cause mortality of cancer, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease and MI, and type 2 diabetes for patients who had a diet low in red meat or processed meat (Vernooij R et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1583); a second review by Zeraatkar and colleagues of 55 observational cohort studies with more than 4 million participants found three servings of unprocessed red meat and processed meat per week was associated with a “very small reduction” in risk for MI, stroke, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality (Zeraatkar D et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326). Another systematic review of 56 observational cohort studies found three servings of unprocessed red meat per week was associated with a slight reduction in overall cancer mortality (Han MA et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-0699).

The authors also performed a systematic review of participant preferences and values regarding meat consumption. The evidence from 54 qualitative studies showed omnivores preferred eating meat, considered it part of a healthy diet, “lack[ed] the skills needed” to prepare meals without meat, and were mostly unwilling to change their meat consumption (Valli C et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M19-1326).

“There was a very small and often trivial absolute risk reduction based on a realistic decrease of three servings of red or processed meat per week,” Dr. Johnston and colleagues wrote in their guidelines. If the very-small exposure effect is true, given peoples’ attachment to their meat-based diet, the associated risk reduction is not likely to provide sufficient motivation to reduce consumption of red meat or processed meat in fully informed individuals, and the weak, rather than strong, recommendation is based on the large variability in peoples’ values and preferences related to meat.”

The authors noted they did not examine factors such as cost, acceptability, feasibility, equity, environmental impact, and views on animal welfare when creating the guidelines. In addition, the low level of evidence from the randomized trials and observational studies means that the potential benefits of reducing red meat or processed meat intake may not outweigh the cultural and personal preferences or quality of life issues that could arise from changing one’s diet.

“This assessment may be excessively pessimistic; indeed, we hope that is the case,” they said. “What is certain is that generating higher-quality evidence regarding the magnitude of any causal effect of meat consumption on health outcomes will test the ingenuity and imagination of health science investigators.”

Dr. El Dib reported receiving funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University. Dr. de Souza reports relationships with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research and the World Health Organization in the forms of personal fees, grants, and speakers bureau and board of directorship appointments. Dr. Patel reports receiving grants and person fees from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, the National Science Foundation, XY.health, doc.ai, Janssen, and the CDC.

SOURCE: Johnston B et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 1. doi: 10.7326/M19-1621.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved canagliflozin (Invokana) for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease, which makes it the first drug indicated for diabetic kidney disease treatment in 20 years.

FDA approval, which was announced in a press release by Janssen, the drug’s manufacturer, is based on results from the phase 3 CREDENCE trial. In that study patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic diabetic kidney disease received either 100 mg canagliflozin or placebo. Patients who received canagliflozin experienced a 30% reduction in the risk of the primary composite endpoint, which included end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal or cardiovascular death. The risk of secondary outcomes were also reduced in patients receiving canagliflozin, including a 39% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

The most common adverse events associated with canagliflozin, according to the label, are female genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infection, and increased urination. Serious adverse events associated with canagliflozin include ketoacidosis, kidney problems, serious urinary tract infections, hypoglycemia, necrotizing fasciitis, serious allergic reaction, and bone fractures.

“The real battle to turn the tide on kidney disease is in early detection and slowing its progression so that patients stay healthier and fewer patients reach kidney failure,” LaVerne A. Burton, president and CEO of the American Kidney Fund, said in the press release. “We are so grateful that advances in kidney disease research are producing treatment options that help to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved canagliflozin (Invokana) for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease, which makes it the first drug indicated for diabetic kidney disease treatment in 20 years.

FDA approval, which was announced in a press release by Janssen, the drug’s manufacturer, is based on results from the phase 3 CREDENCE trial. In that study patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic diabetic kidney disease received either 100 mg canagliflozin or placebo. Patients who received canagliflozin experienced a 30% reduction in the risk of the primary composite endpoint, which included end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal or cardiovascular death. The risk of secondary outcomes were also reduced in patients receiving canagliflozin, including a 39% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

The most common adverse events associated with canagliflozin, according to the label, are female genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infection, and increased urination. Serious adverse events associated with canagliflozin include ketoacidosis, kidney problems, serious urinary tract infections, hypoglycemia, necrotizing fasciitis, serious allergic reaction, and bone fractures.

“The real battle to turn the tide on kidney disease is in early detection and slowing its progression so that patients stay healthier and fewer patients reach kidney failure,” LaVerne A. Burton, president and CEO of the American Kidney Fund, said in the press release. “We are so grateful that advances in kidney disease research are producing treatment options that help to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved canagliflozin (Invokana) for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic kidney disease, which makes it the first drug indicated for diabetic kidney disease treatment in 20 years.

FDA approval, which was announced in a press release by Janssen, the drug’s manufacturer, is based on results from the phase 3 CREDENCE trial. In that study patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic diabetic kidney disease received either 100 mg canagliflozin or placebo. Patients who received canagliflozin experienced a 30% reduction in the risk of the primary composite endpoint, which included end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, and renal or cardiovascular death. The risk of secondary outcomes were also reduced in patients receiving canagliflozin, including a 39% reduction in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

The most common adverse events associated with canagliflozin, according to the label, are female genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infection, and increased urination. Serious adverse events associated with canagliflozin include ketoacidosis, kidney problems, serious urinary tract infections, hypoglycemia, necrotizing fasciitis, serious allergic reaction, and bone fractures.

“The real battle to turn the tide on kidney disease is in early detection and slowing its progression so that patients stay healthier and fewer patients reach kidney failure,” LaVerne A. Burton, president and CEO of the American Kidney Fund, said in the press release. “We are so grateful that advances in kidney disease research are producing treatment options that help to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease and reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) was better than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA1c) and other glycemic endpoints in people with type 1 diabetes, regardless of the type of insulin delivery method used in a 3-year follow-up of a prospective, real-world clinical trial.

Long-term results from the COMISAIR study showed that the end-of-study HbA_1c values were significantly lower, compared with baseline values, in people with type 1 diabetes who used rtCGM with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = .0002) or an insulin pump (6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P less than .0001). There was no significant difference between the two rtCGM delivery-method groups.

Final HbA_1c values for those who used SMBG with multiple daily injections or an insulin pump were 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) and 7.7% (61 mmol/mol), respectively, but were not significantly different from baseline (P = .3574 and P = .1, respectively).

These findings could help guide physicians when discussing treatment and monitoring options with their patients, suggested study investigator Jan Šoupal, MD, PhD, of Charles University in Prague, when he presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Šoupal and associates have previously reported data from the COMISAIR (Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes Including Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens) study at 1 year of follow-up for 65 patients (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18:532-8). The findings he presented at the EASD meeting, simultaneously published online in Diabetes Care, were for the full cohort of 94 patients and, with 3 years of follow-up, makes it “the longest CGM trial ever,” he said.

At the time the COMISAIR study was initiated, in 2013, “we knew that insulin pump therapy, especially in combination with real-time CGM, can improve several outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Šoupal observed. However, the effectiveness of CGM in patients with MDI was not widely described, and comparisons between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and insulin MDI with rtCGM were lacking. “Moreover, we didn’t have any comparison between insulin pump therapy alone, without CGM, and MDI with CGM, and there were no long-term trials with real-time [continuous glucose monitoring].”

The aim of the COMISAIR study was therefore to compare four different treatment strategies in people with type 1 diabetes who had an HbA_1c of 7%-­­10% (53-86 mmol/mol), despite MDI treatment with insulin analogues and SMBG. The treatment strategies tested were CSII plus rtCGM (n = 26), MDI plus rtCGM (n = 22), CSII plus SMBG (n = 25), and MDI plus SMBG (n = 21). Patients were not randomized to these treatment arms but exposed to all of them during a 4-day DAFNE-like training session and then allowed to choose which they would like to use according to their individual needs and preferences, reflecting real-life practice.

Dr. Šoupal pointed out that two different continuous glucose monitoring devices had been used in the trial, and that 100% of the CGM groups wore a sensor for more than 70% of the time, which was one of the prerequisites for inclusion in the trial. Good adherence was observed, with 93% of patients completing all study visits, and CGM users wearing their sensors on average 88% of the time. “This nice adherence may be connected to the pretty good results,” he observed.

In discussing the HbA_1c results, Dr. Šoupal noted that “improvement observed in patients with [continuous glucose monitoring] is stable throughout 3 years, which is not always a reality for different types of treatment for diabetes.” In addition, “it is not so important how insulin is delivered, what is more important is how patients with type 1 diabetes monitor their glucose.”

Another key endpoint of the trial was time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]). Results showed significantly more patients achieving this with rtCGM than with SMBG, regardless of whether they were using pump therapy or MDI. Comparing 3-year with baseline values, time in range was 72.3% versus 50.9% for rtCGM with CSII and 69% versus 48.7% for rtCGM with MDI (P less than .0001 for both). Results with SMBG with CSII or MDI were a respective 57.8% versus 50.6% (P = .0114) and 54.7% versus 51.8% (P = 1.0).

Glycemic variability was reduced in patients using insulin pumps with SBMG, and “not surprisingly, there was a reduction in both CGM-augmented groups,” Dr. Šoupal stated.

There was a reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia from baseline to year 3 in all four groups, but that was significant only for the two rtCGM groups. Overall, there were seven severe hypoglycemia episodes, five in the SMBG groups (two in the CSII group, three in the MDI group) and two in the rtCGM groups (one each in the CSII and MDI groups), with one episode only occurring when the CGM sensor was not being worn.

Three episodes of ketoacidosis were reported – one each in the SMBG-pump, SMBG-MDI, and rtCGM-pump groups.

In summing up, Dr. Šoupal said that “real-time CGM, both with insulin pumps and with [multiple daily injections], provided significant, comparable, and stable improvement of glycemic outcomes.” He added that “treatment with CGM and MDI was more effective than treatment with insulin pump therapy alone, and that CGM and MDI can even be considered as a suitable alternative to treatment with insulin pumps and CMG for some patients.”

With many treatment options available, some will suit patients better than others, he suggested, but although “individualization of our treatment is important”, the COMISAIR data show that “it is CGM that makes the difference”.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Dr. Šoupal reported receiving honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dexcom also paid for the development of the manuscript published in Diabetes Care.
 

SOURCES: Šoupal J et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 40; Šoupal J et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.

BARCELONA – Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) was better than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA1c) and other glycemic endpoints in people with type 1 diabetes, regardless of the type of insulin delivery method used in a 3-year follow-up of a prospective, real-world clinical trial.

Long-term results from the COMISAIR study showed that the end-of-study HbA_1c values were significantly lower, compared with baseline values, in people with type 1 diabetes who used rtCGM with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = .0002) or an insulin pump (6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P less than .0001). There was no significant difference between the two rtCGM delivery-method groups.

Final HbA_1c values for those who used SMBG with multiple daily injections or an insulin pump were 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) and 7.7% (61 mmol/mol), respectively, but were not significantly different from baseline (P = .3574 and P = .1, respectively).

These findings could help guide physicians when discussing treatment and monitoring options with their patients, suggested study investigator Jan Šoupal, MD, PhD, of Charles University in Prague, when he presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Šoupal and associates have previously reported data from the COMISAIR (Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes Including Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens) study at 1 year of follow-up for 65 patients (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18:532-8). The findings he presented at the EASD meeting, simultaneously published online in Diabetes Care, were for the full cohort of 94 patients and, with 3 years of follow-up, makes it “the longest CGM trial ever,” he said.

At the time the COMISAIR study was initiated, in 2013, “we knew that insulin pump therapy, especially in combination with real-time CGM, can improve several outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Šoupal observed. However, the effectiveness of CGM in patients with MDI was not widely described, and comparisons between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and insulin MDI with rtCGM were lacking. “Moreover, we didn’t have any comparison between insulin pump therapy alone, without CGM, and MDI with CGM, and there were no long-term trials with real-time [continuous glucose monitoring].”

The aim of the COMISAIR study was therefore to compare four different treatment strategies in people with type 1 diabetes who had an HbA_1c of 7%-­­10% (53-86 mmol/mol), despite MDI treatment with insulin analogues and SMBG. The treatment strategies tested were CSII plus rtCGM (n = 26), MDI plus rtCGM (n = 22), CSII plus SMBG (n = 25), and MDI plus SMBG (n = 21). Patients were not randomized to these treatment arms but exposed to all of them during a 4-day DAFNE-like training session and then allowed to choose which they would like to use according to their individual needs and preferences, reflecting real-life practice.

Dr. Šoupal pointed out that two different continuous glucose monitoring devices had been used in the trial, and that 100% of the CGM groups wore a sensor for more than 70% of the time, which was one of the prerequisites for inclusion in the trial. Good adherence was observed, with 93% of patients completing all study visits, and CGM users wearing their sensors on average 88% of the time. “This nice adherence may be connected to the pretty good results,” he observed.

In discussing the HbA_1c results, Dr. Šoupal noted that “improvement observed in patients with [continuous glucose monitoring] is stable throughout 3 years, which is not always a reality for different types of treatment for diabetes.” In addition, “it is not so important how insulin is delivered, what is more important is how patients with type 1 diabetes monitor their glucose.”

Another key endpoint of the trial was time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]). Results showed significantly more patients achieving this with rtCGM than with SMBG, regardless of whether they were using pump therapy or MDI. Comparing 3-year with baseline values, time in range was 72.3% versus 50.9% for rtCGM with CSII and 69% versus 48.7% for rtCGM with MDI (P less than .0001 for both). Results with SMBG with CSII or MDI were a respective 57.8% versus 50.6% (P = .0114) and 54.7% versus 51.8% (P = 1.0).

Glycemic variability was reduced in patients using insulin pumps with SBMG, and “not surprisingly, there was a reduction in both CGM-augmented groups,” Dr. Šoupal stated.

There was a reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia from baseline to year 3 in all four groups, but that was significant only for the two rtCGM groups. Overall, there were seven severe hypoglycemia episodes, five in the SMBG groups (two in the CSII group, three in the MDI group) and two in the rtCGM groups (one each in the CSII and MDI groups), with one episode only occurring when the CGM sensor was not being worn.

Three episodes of ketoacidosis were reported – one each in the SMBG-pump, SMBG-MDI, and rtCGM-pump groups.

In summing up, Dr. Šoupal said that “real-time CGM, both with insulin pumps and with [multiple daily injections], provided significant, comparable, and stable improvement of glycemic outcomes.” He added that “treatment with CGM and MDI was more effective than treatment with insulin pump therapy alone, and that CGM and MDI can even be considered as a suitable alternative to treatment with insulin pumps and CMG for some patients.”

With many treatment options available, some will suit patients better than others, he suggested, but although “individualization of our treatment is important”, the COMISAIR data show that “it is CGM that makes the difference”.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Dr. Šoupal reported receiving honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dexcom also paid for the development of the manuscript published in Diabetes Care.
 

SOURCES: Šoupal J et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 40; Šoupal J et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.

BARCELONA – Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) was better than self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA1c) and other glycemic endpoints in people with type 1 diabetes, regardless of the type of insulin delivery method used in a 3-year follow-up of a prospective, real-world clinical trial.

Long-term results from the COMISAIR study showed that the end-of-study HbA_1c values were significantly lower, compared with baseline values, in people with type 1 diabetes who used rtCGM with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = .0002) or an insulin pump (6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P less than .0001). There was no significant difference between the two rtCGM delivery-method groups.

Final HbA_1c values for those who used SMBG with multiple daily injections or an insulin pump were 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) and 7.7% (61 mmol/mol), respectively, but were not significantly different from baseline (P = .3574 and P = .1, respectively).

These findings could help guide physicians when discussing treatment and monitoring options with their patients, suggested study investigator Jan Šoupal, MD, PhD, of Charles University in Prague, when he presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Šoupal and associates have previously reported data from the COMISAIR (Comparison of Different Treatment Modalities for Type 1 Diabetes Including Sensor-Augmented Insulin Regimens) study at 1 year of follow-up for 65 patients (Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18:532-8). The findings he presented at the EASD meeting, simultaneously published online in Diabetes Care, were for the full cohort of 94 patients and, with 3 years of follow-up, makes it “the longest CGM trial ever,” he said.

At the time the COMISAIR study was initiated, in 2013, “we knew that insulin pump therapy, especially in combination with real-time CGM, can improve several outcomes of patients with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Šoupal observed. However, the effectiveness of CGM in patients with MDI was not widely described, and comparisons between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and insulin MDI with rtCGM were lacking. “Moreover, we didn’t have any comparison between insulin pump therapy alone, without CGM, and MDI with CGM, and there were no long-term trials with real-time [continuous glucose monitoring].”

The aim of the COMISAIR study was therefore to compare four different treatment strategies in people with type 1 diabetes who had an HbA_1c of 7%-­­10% (53-86 mmol/mol), despite MDI treatment with insulin analogues and SMBG. The treatment strategies tested were CSII plus rtCGM (n = 26), MDI plus rtCGM (n = 22), CSII plus SMBG (n = 25), and MDI plus SMBG (n = 21). Patients were not randomized to these treatment arms but exposed to all of them during a 4-day DAFNE-like training session and then allowed to choose which they would like to use according to their individual needs and preferences, reflecting real-life practice.

Dr. Šoupal pointed out that two different continuous glucose monitoring devices had been used in the trial, and that 100% of the CGM groups wore a sensor for more than 70% of the time, which was one of the prerequisites for inclusion in the trial. Good adherence was observed, with 93% of patients completing all study visits, and CGM users wearing their sensors on average 88% of the time. “This nice adherence may be connected to the pretty good results,” he observed.

In discussing the HbA_1c results, Dr. Šoupal noted that “improvement observed in patients with [continuous glucose monitoring] is stable throughout 3 years, which is not always a reality for different types of treatment for diabetes.” In addition, “it is not so important how insulin is delivered, what is more important is how patients with type 1 diabetes monitor their glucose.”

Another key endpoint of the trial was time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]). Results showed significantly more patients achieving this with rtCGM than with SMBG, regardless of whether they were using pump therapy or MDI. Comparing 3-year with baseline values, time in range was 72.3% versus 50.9% for rtCGM with CSII and 69% versus 48.7% for rtCGM with MDI (P less than .0001 for both). Results with SMBG with CSII or MDI were a respective 57.8% versus 50.6% (P = .0114) and 54.7% versus 51.8% (P = 1.0).

Glycemic variability was reduced in patients using insulin pumps with SBMG, and “not surprisingly, there was a reduction in both CGM-augmented groups,” Dr. Šoupal stated.

There was a reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia from baseline to year 3 in all four groups, but that was significant only for the two rtCGM groups. Overall, there were seven severe hypoglycemia episodes, five in the SMBG groups (two in the CSII group, three in the MDI group) and two in the rtCGM groups (one each in the CSII and MDI groups), with one episode only occurring when the CGM sensor was not being worn.

Three episodes of ketoacidosis were reported – one each in the SMBG-pump, SMBG-MDI, and rtCGM-pump groups.

In summing up, Dr. Šoupal said that “real-time CGM, both with insulin pumps and with [multiple daily injections], provided significant, comparable, and stable improvement of glycemic outcomes.” He added that “treatment with CGM and MDI was more effective than treatment with insulin pump therapy alone, and that CGM and MDI can even be considered as a suitable alternative to treatment with insulin pumps and CMG for some patients.”

With many treatment options available, some will suit patients better than others, he suggested, but although “individualization of our treatment is important”, the COMISAIR data show that “it is CGM that makes the difference”.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Dr. Šoupal reported receiving honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dexcom also paid for the development of the manuscript published in Diabetes Care.
 

SOURCES: Šoupal J et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 40; Šoupal J et al. Diabetes Care. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0888.

BARCELONA – Further differences in how adults and adolescents with type 2 diabetes respond to glucose and glucagon have been demonstrated by new data from the Restoring Insulin SEcretion (RISE) studies presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

In a comparison of responses to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), youth (n = 85) were more likely than were adults (n = 353) to have a biphasic type of glucose response curve (18.8% vs. 8.2%, respectively), which is considered a more normal response curve. However, that “did not foretell an advantageous outcome to the RISE interventions in the younger age group,” said study investigator Silva Arslanian, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Fewer youth than adults had an incessant response (10.6% vs. 14.5%, respectively) or monophasic response to an OGTT (70.6% vs. 77.3%), and that was associated with lower beta-cell responses, compared with individuals with monophasic or biphasic glucose curves.

“Irrespective of curve type, insulin sensitivity was lower in youth than in adults,” Dr. Arslanian said. She added that beta-cell responses were greater in youth than in adults, except in youth with the worst incessant-increase curve type. In youth with the incessant-increase glucose curve, there was no evidence of beta-cell hypersecretion, which suggested youth “have more severe beta-cell dysfunction,” compared with adults.

There were also data presented on whether differences in alpha-cell function between youth and adults might be important. Those data showed that although fasting glucagon concentrations did not increase with fasting glucose in youth, they did in adults. It was found that fasting and stimulated glucagon concentrations were lower in youth than in adults, meaning that “alpha-cell function does not explain the beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes,” reported study investigator Steven Kahn, MD, ChB, of VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington, Seattle.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“What was new, however, was that [the beta-cells of] youth were hyperresponsive and were really making large amounts of insulin.” Increased insulin production might be expected when there is insulin resistance, he added, but the level seen was “more than you would expect.” Over time, that might be toxic to the beta cells, and evidence from the earlier TODAY (Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth) studies suggested that the rate of beta-cell dysfunction was more rapid in youth than in adults.

Giving his perspective, as a pediatrician, on the new OGTT analyses from the RISE studies, Dr. Zeitler said that these data showed that the characteristic beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth “actually disappears as glycemia worsens.” In youth with the incessant glucose response pattern, “it shows that they cannot tolerate glucose, and their glucose levels just go up and up and up” until the beta cells fail.

This is a critical observation, Dr. Zeitler said, noting that it “sort of had to be the case, because sooner or later you had to lose beta cells ... this is probably the point where aggressive therapy is needed ... it was always a bit of a paradox, if these kids have such an aggressive course, how come they were starting out being so hyperresponsive?”

With regard to alpha-cell function, “these are really fresh data. We haven’t really had a long time to think about it,” said Dr. Zeitler. “What I find interesting is that there isn’t alpha-cell glucagon hypersecretion in youth like there is in adults.” That may be because youth are making so much insulin that they are suppressing glucagon production, but that’s not an entirely satisfying answer,” he said.

“The TODAY study demonstrated that diabetes in kids is aggressive; these RISE data now start to put some physiology around that, why is it more aggressive? Hyperresponsiveness, loss of beta-cell function over time, lack of response to intervention, compared with the adults.”

As for the clinical implications, Dr. Zeitler said that this is further evidence that the default approach to treating younger patients with greater caution than adults is perhaps not the best way to treat type 2 diabetes.

“These data are really showing that there is a very important toxic period that is occurring in these kids early on [and] that probably argues for more, not less, aggressive therapy,” than with adults. “Clearly, something is happening that is putting them at really big risk for rapid progression, and that’s your chance to treat much more aggressively, much earlier.”

The RISE studies are sponsored by the RISE Study Group in collaboration with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler disclosed that he had acted as a consultant to Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and had received research support from Janssen. Dr. Arslanian stated that she has nothing to disclose. Dr. Khan did not provide any disclosure information.

SOURCES: Arslanian S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.1; Kahn S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.3

BARCELONA – Further differences in how adults and adolescents with type 2 diabetes respond to glucose and glucagon have been demonstrated by new data from the Restoring Insulin SEcretion (RISE) studies presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

In a comparison of responses to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), youth (n = 85) were more likely than were adults (n = 353) to have a biphasic type of glucose response curve (18.8% vs. 8.2%, respectively), which is considered a more normal response curve. However, that “did not foretell an advantageous outcome to the RISE interventions in the younger age group,” said study investigator Silva Arslanian, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Fewer youth than adults had an incessant response (10.6% vs. 14.5%, respectively) or monophasic response to an OGTT (70.6% vs. 77.3%), and that was associated with lower beta-cell responses, compared with individuals with monophasic or biphasic glucose curves.

“Irrespective of curve type, insulin sensitivity was lower in youth than in adults,” Dr. Arslanian said. She added that beta-cell responses were greater in youth than in adults, except in youth with the worst incessant-increase curve type. In youth with the incessant-increase glucose curve, there was no evidence of beta-cell hypersecretion, which suggested youth “have more severe beta-cell dysfunction,” compared with adults.

There were also data presented on whether differences in alpha-cell function between youth and adults might be important. Those data showed that although fasting glucagon concentrations did not increase with fasting glucose in youth, they did in adults. It was found that fasting and stimulated glucagon concentrations were lower in youth than in adults, meaning that “alpha-cell function does not explain the beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes,” reported study investigator Steven Kahn, MD, ChB, of VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington, Seattle.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“What was new, however, was that [the beta-cells of] youth were hyperresponsive and were really making large amounts of insulin.” Increased insulin production might be expected when there is insulin resistance, he added, but the level seen was “more than you would expect.” Over time, that might be toxic to the beta cells, and evidence from the earlier TODAY (Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth) studies suggested that the rate of beta-cell dysfunction was more rapid in youth than in adults.

Giving his perspective, as a pediatrician, on the new OGTT analyses from the RISE studies, Dr. Zeitler said that these data showed that the characteristic beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth “actually disappears as glycemia worsens.” In youth with the incessant glucose response pattern, “it shows that they cannot tolerate glucose, and their glucose levels just go up and up and up” until the beta cells fail.

This is a critical observation, Dr. Zeitler said, noting that it “sort of had to be the case, because sooner or later you had to lose beta cells ... this is probably the point where aggressive therapy is needed ... it was always a bit of a paradox, if these kids have such an aggressive course, how come they were starting out being so hyperresponsive?”

With regard to alpha-cell function, “these are really fresh data. We haven’t really had a long time to think about it,” said Dr. Zeitler. “What I find interesting is that there isn’t alpha-cell glucagon hypersecretion in youth like there is in adults.” That may be because youth are making so much insulin that they are suppressing glucagon production, but that’s not an entirely satisfying answer,” he said.

“The TODAY study demonstrated that diabetes in kids is aggressive; these RISE data now start to put some physiology around that, why is it more aggressive? Hyperresponsiveness, loss of beta-cell function over time, lack of response to intervention, compared with the adults.”

As for the clinical implications, Dr. Zeitler said that this is further evidence that the default approach to treating younger patients with greater caution than adults is perhaps not the best way to treat type 2 diabetes.

“These data are really showing that there is a very important toxic period that is occurring in these kids early on [and] that probably argues for more, not less, aggressive therapy,” than with adults. “Clearly, something is happening that is putting them at really big risk for rapid progression, and that’s your chance to treat much more aggressively, much earlier.”

The RISE studies are sponsored by the RISE Study Group in collaboration with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler disclosed that he had acted as a consultant to Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and had received research support from Janssen. Dr. Arslanian stated that she has nothing to disclose. Dr. Khan did not provide any disclosure information.

SOURCES: Arslanian S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.1; Kahn S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.3

BARCELONA – Further differences in how adults and adolescents with type 2 diabetes respond to glucose and glucagon have been demonstrated by new data from the Restoring Insulin SEcretion (RISE) studies presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

In a comparison of responses to an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), youth (n = 85) were more likely than were adults (n = 353) to have a biphasic type of glucose response curve (18.8% vs. 8.2%, respectively), which is considered a more normal response curve. However, that “did not foretell an advantageous outcome to the RISE interventions in the younger age group,” said study investigator Silva Arslanian, MD, of UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.

Fewer youth than adults had an incessant response (10.6% vs. 14.5%, respectively) or monophasic response to an OGTT (70.6% vs. 77.3%), and that was associated with lower beta-cell responses, compared with individuals with monophasic or biphasic glucose curves.

“Irrespective of curve type, insulin sensitivity was lower in youth than in adults,” Dr. Arslanian said. She added that beta-cell responses were greater in youth than in adults, except in youth with the worst incessant-increase curve type. In youth with the incessant-increase glucose curve, there was no evidence of beta-cell hypersecretion, which suggested youth “have more severe beta-cell dysfunction,” compared with adults.

There were also data presented on whether differences in alpha-cell function between youth and adults might be important. Those data showed that although fasting glucagon concentrations did not increase with fasting glucose in youth, they did in adults. It was found that fasting and stimulated glucagon concentrations were lower in youth than in adults, meaning that “alpha-cell function does not explain the beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth with impaired glucose tolerance or recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes,” reported study investigator Steven Kahn, MD, ChB, of VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington, Seattle.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“What was new, however, was that [the beta-cells of] youth were hyperresponsive and were really making large amounts of insulin.” Increased insulin production might be expected when there is insulin resistance, he added, but the level seen was “more than you would expect.” Over time, that might be toxic to the beta cells, and evidence from the earlier TODAY (Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth) studies suggested that the rate of beta-cell dysfunction was more rapid in youth than in adults.

Giving his perspective, as a pediatrician, on the new OGTT analyses from the RISE studies, Dr. Zeitler said that these data showed that the characteristic beta-cell hyperresponsiveness seen in youth “actually disappears as glycemia worsens.” In youth with the incessant glucose response pattern, “it shows that they cannot tolerate glucose, and their glucose levels just go up and up and up” until the beta cells fail.

This is a critical observation, Dr. Zeitler said, noting that it “sort of had to be the case, because sooner or later you had to lose beta cells ... this is probably the point where aggressive therapy is needed ... it was always a bit of a paradox, if these kids have such an aggressive course, how come they were starting out being so hyperresponsive?”

With regard to alpha-cell function, “these are really fresh data. We haven’t really had a long time to think about it,” said Dr. Zeitler. “What I find interesting is that there isn’t alpha-cell glucagon hypersecretion in youth like there is in adults.” That may be because youth are making so much insulin that they are suppressing glucagon production, but that’s not an entirely satisfying answer,” he said.

“The TODAY study demonstrated that diabetes in kids is aggressive; these RISE data now start to put some physiology around that, why is it more aggressive? Hyperresponsiveness, loss of beta-cell function over time, lack of response to intervention, compared with the adults.”

As for the clinical implications, Dr. Zeitler said that this is further evidence that the default approach to treating younger patients with greater caution than adults is perhaps not the best way to treat type 2 diabetes.

“These data are really showing that there is a very important toxic period that is occurring in these kids early on [and] that probably argues for more, not less, aggressive therapy,” than with adults. “Clearly, something is happening that is putting them at really big risk for rapid progression, and that’s your chance to treat much more aggressively, much earlier.”

The RISE studies are sponsored by the RISE Study Group in collaboration with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Zeitler disclosed that he had acted as a consultant to Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, and had received research support from Janssen. Dr. Arslanian stated that she has nothing to disclose. Dr. Khan did not provide any disclosure information.

SOURCES: Arslanian S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.1; Kahn S. EASD 2019, Oral presentation S34.3

BARCELONA – A similar overall risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was observed with insulin degludec (Tresiba) and insulin glargine U300 (Toujeo) in the phase 3 CONCLUDE study data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

During a 36-week maintenance treatment period, the rate ratio (RR) for the primary endpoint of the study – severe or confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, defined as a blood-glucose level of less than 3.1 mmol/L (56 mg/dL) – was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.06; P = .17) in a comparison the two long-acting insulins.

There were some differences that favored insulin degludec over insulin glargine when other endpoints were considered, but because a statistical testing hierarchy was used, “no confirmatory results can be made from CONCLUDE,” one of the study investigators, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego, said during a special symposium at the meeting.

“If the primary endpoint was not achieved, the testing hierarchy stopped after the first occurrence of nonsignificance,” she explained. Although that occurred, the other endpoints could still be analyzed as they were all prespecified, she argued. These showed that during the maintenance treatment period, there were lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84; P = .0014) and severe episodes (those requiring third-party assistance; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57; P = .0027) with insulin degludec, compared with insulin glargine.

The trial came under fire, however, from Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology in the department of endocrinology metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa, Italy, who provided the EASD-invited independent commentary on the study’s findings. “This is the CONCLUDE trial. You’d could expect a CONCLUDE trial to be conclusive in its conclusions!” he said, noting that there were “too many uncertainties” in the trial.

CONCLUDE was a randomized, open-label, head-to-head study of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in 1,609 adult patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the risk of hypoglycemia associated with the two long-acting insulins.

“Hypoglycemia is a very common event in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Thomas Pieber, MD, Medical University Graz, Austria, reminded the audience. Severe hypoglycemia is associated with insulin use, and data show that patients with type 2 diabetes are at as much risk as are those with type 1 diabetes in the longer term (Diabetologia. 2007;50:1140-7).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

He said that it was not clear from the findings why there might be a lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec. He noted that the rate of diurnal hypoglycemia should be considered, and that the statistical interpretation of the data may be “a matter of uncertainty as well.”

Dr. Del Prato agreed that “prevention of hypoglycemia remained a major task in treating type 2 diabetic patients, particularly those on insulin therapy.” He proposed that differentiating between new basal insulin analogs may need “better tools for characterization of PK/PD, rigorous interpretation of the results, careful assessment of the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials performed in selected study populations, and independent research and careful real-world studies to be performed.”

Furthermore, he said translating the potential benefit of new insulin analogs “cannot just rely on their properties, rather it requires validation over the time of the accuracy of glucose meters, and adequate patient education, and even more, education reinforcement.”

All of the speakers disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, which funded the study, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCES: Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 90; Pieber T. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.1; Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.2; Del Prato S. EASD 2019. Oral Presentation S38.3.

BARCELONA – A similar overall risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was observed with insulin degludec (Tresiba) and insulin glargine U300 (Toujeo) in the phase 3 CONCLUDE study data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

During a 36-week maintenance treatment period, the rate ratio (RR) for the primary endpoint of the study – severe or confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, defined as a blood-glucose level of less than 3.1 mmol/L (56 mg/dL) – was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.06; P = .17) in a comparison the two long-acting insulins.

There were some differences that favored insulin degludec over insulin glargine when other endpoints were considered, but because a statistical testing hierarchy was used, “no confirmatory results can be made from CONCLUDE,” one of the study investigators, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego, said during a special symposium at the meeting.

“If the primary endpoint was not achieved, the testing hierarchy stopped after the first occurrence of nonsignificance,” she explained. Although that occurred, the other endpoints could still be analyzed as they were all prespecified, she argued. These showed that during the maintenance treatment period, there were lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84; P = .0014) and severe episodes (those requiring third-party assistance; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57; P = .0027) with insulin degludec, compared with insulin glargine.

The trial came under fire, however, from Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology in the department of endocrinology metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa, Italy, who provided the EASD-invited independent commentary on the study’s findings. “This is the CONCLUDE trial. You’d could expect a CONCLUDE trial to be conclusive in its conclusions!” he said, noting that there were “too many uncertainties” in the trial.

CONCLUDE was a randomized, open-label, head-to-head study of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in 1,609 adult patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the risk of hypoglycemia associated with the two long-acting insulins.

“Hypoglycemia is a very common event in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Thomas Pieber, MD, Medical University Graz, Austria, reminded the audience. Severe hypoglycemia is associated with insulin use, and data show that patients with type 2 diabetes are at as much risk as are those with type 1 diabetes in the longer term (Diabetologia. 2007;50:1140-7).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

He said that it was not clear from the findings why there might be a lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec. He noted that the rate of diurnal hypoglycemia should be considered, and that the statistical interpretation of the data may be “a matter of uncertainty as well.”

Dr. Del Prato agreed that “prevention of hypoglycemia remained a major task in treating type 2 diabetic patients, particularly those on insulin therapy.” He proposed that differentiating between new basal insulin analogs may need “better tools for characterization of PK/PD, rigorous interpretation of the results, careful assessment of the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials performed in selected study populations, and independent research and careful real-world studies to be performed.”

Furthermore, he said translating the potential benefit of new insulin analogs “cannot just rely on their properties, rather it requires validation over the time of the accuracy of glucose meters, and adequate patient education, and even more, education reinforcement.”

All of the speakers disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, which funded the study, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCES: Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 90; Pieber T. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.1; Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.2; Del Prato S. EASD 2019. Oral Presentation S38.3.

BARCELONA – A similar overall risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was observed with insulin degludec (Tresiba) and insulin glargine U300 (Toujeo) in the phase 3 CONCLUDE study data presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

During a 36-week maintenance treatment period, the rate ratio (RR) for the primary endpoint of the study – severe or confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemia, defined as a blood-glucose level of less than 3.1 mmol/L (56 mg/dL) – was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.06; P = .17) in a comparison the two long-acting insulins.

There were some differences that favored insulin degludec over insulin glargine when other endpoints were considered, but because a statistical testing hierarchy was used, “no confirmatory results can be made from CONCLUDE,” one of the study investigators, Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute, San Diego, said during a special symposium at the meeting.

“If the primary endpoint was not achieved, the testing hierarchy stopped after the first occurrence of nonsignificance,” she explained. Although that occurred, the other endpoints could still be analyzed as they were all prespecified, she argued. These showed that during the maintenance treatment period, there were lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.84; P = .0014) and severe episodes (those requiring third-party assistance; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.57; P = .0027) with insulin degludec, compared with insulin glargine.

The trial came under fire, however, from Stefano Del Prato, MD, professor of endocrinology in the department of endocrinology metabolism and chief of the section of diabetes at the University of Pisa, Italy, who provided the EASD-invited independent commentary on the study’s findings. “This is the CONCLUDE trial. You’d could expect a CONCLUDE trial to be conclusive in its conclusions!” he said, noting that there were “too many uncertainties” in the trial.

CONCLUDE was a randomized, open-label, head-to-head study of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine in 1,609 adult patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the risk of hypoglycemia associated with the two long-acting insulins.

“Hypoglycemia is a very common event in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Thomas Pieber, MD, Medical University Graz, Austria, reminded the audience. Severe hypoglycemia is associated with insulin use, and data show that patients with type 2 diabetes are at as much risk as are those with type 1 diabetes in the longer term (Diabetologia. 2007;50:1140-7).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

He said that it was not clear from the findings why there might be a lower risk of hypoglycemia with insulin degludec. He noted that the rate of diurnal hypoglycemia should be considered, and that the statistical interpretation of the data may be “a matter of uncertainty as well.”

Dr. Del Prato agreed that “prevention of hypoglycemia remained a major task in treating type 2 diabetic patients, particularly those on insulin therapy.” He proposed that differentiating between new basal insulin analogs may need “better tools for characterization of PK/PD, rigorous interpretation of the results, careful assessment of the generalizability of results from randomized controlled trials performed in selected study populations, and independent research and careful real-world studies to be performed.”

Furthermore, he said translating the potential benefit of new insulin analogs “cannot just rely on their properties, rather it requires validation over the time of the accuracy of glucose meters, and adequate patient education, and even more, education reinforcement.”

All of the speakers disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk, which funded the study, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCES: Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation 90; Pieber T. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.1; Philis-Tsimikas A. EASD 2019, Oral Presentation S38.2; Del Prato S. EASD 2019. Oral Presentation S38.3.

PHILADELPHIA – For patients with high-risk diabetes, a novel, machine learning–derived risk score based on 10 common clinical variables can identify those facing a heart failure risk of up to nearly 20% over the ensuing 5 years, an investigator said at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The risk score, dubbed WATCH-DM, has greater accuracy in predicting incident heart failure than traditional risk-based models, and requires no specific cardiovascular biomarkers or imaging, according to Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and faculty at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The tool may help inform risk-based monitoring and introduction of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been shown in multiple clinical trials to prevent heart failure in at-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“Patients identified at high risk based on WATCH-DM should be strongly considered for initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” Dr. Vaduganathan said in an interview.

WATCH-DM is available online at cvriskscores.com. Work is underway to integrate the tool into electronic health record systems at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “I expect that to be launched in the next year,” he said.

The WATCH-DM score was developed based on data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial, including 8,756 T2DM patients with inadequate glycemic control at high cardiovascular risk and no heart failure at baseline.

Starting with 147 variables, the investigators used a decision-tree machine learning approach to identify predictors of heart failure.

“What machine learning does is automate the variable selection process, as a form of artificial intelligence,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

The WATCH-DM risk score was based on the 10 best-performing predictors as selected by machine learning, including body mass index, age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, serum creatinine, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, QRS duration, prior myocardial infarction, and prior coronary artery bypass grafting.

The 5-year risk of heart failure was just 1.1% for patients with WATCH-DM scores in the lowest quintile, increasing in a graded fashion to nearly 20% (17.4%) in the highest quintile, study results show.

Findings of the study were simultaneously published in the journal Diabetes Care.

Dr. Vaduganathan said he is supported by an award from Harvard Catalyst. He provided disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim (advisory boards), and with Novartis and the National Institutes of Health (participation on clinical endpoint committees).

SOURCE: HFSA 2019; Segar MW, Vaduganathan M et al. Diabetes Care. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0587.

PHILADELPHIA – For patients with high-risk diabetes, a novel, machine learning–derived risk score based on 10 common clinical variables can identify those facing a heart failure risk of up to nearly 20% over the ensuing 5 years, an investigator said at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The risk score, dubbed WATCH-DM, has greater accuracy in predicting incident heart failure than traditional risk-based models, and requires no specific cardiovascular biomarkers or imaging, according to Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and faculty at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The tool may help inform risk-based monitoring and introduction of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been shown in multiple clinical trials to prevent heart failure in at-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“Patients identified at high risk based on WATCH-DM should be strongly considered for initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” Dr. Vaduganathan said in an interview.

WATCH-DM is available online at cvriskscores.com. Work is underway to integrate the tool into electronic health record systems at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “I expect that to be launched in the next year,” he said.

The WATCH-DM score was developed based on data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial, including 8,756 T2DM patients with inadequate glycemic control at high cardiovascular risk and no heart failure at baseline.

Starting with 147 variables, the investigators used a decision-tree machine learning approach to identify predictors of heart failure.

“What machine learning does is automate the variable selection process, as a form of artificial intelligence,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

The WATCH-DM risk score was based on the 10 best-performing predictors as selected by machine learning, including body mass index, age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, serum creatinine, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, QRS duration, prior myocardial infarction, and prior coronary artery bypass grafting.

The 5-year risk of heart failure was just 1.1% for patients with WATCH-DM scores in the lowest quintile, increasing in a graded fashion to nearly 20% (17.4%) in the highest quintile, study results show.

Findings of the study were simultaneously published in the journal Diabetes Care.

Dr. Vaduganathan said he is supported by an award from Harvard Catalyst. He provided disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim (advisory boards), and with Novartis and the National Institutes of Health (participation on clinical endpoint committees).

SOURCE: HFSA 2019; Segar MW, Vaduganathan M et al. Diabetes Care. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0587.

PHILADELPHIA – For patients with high-risk diabetes, a novel, machine learning–derived risk score based on 10 common clinical variables can identify those facing a heart failure risk of up to nearly 20% over the ensuing 5 years, an investigator said at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.

The risk score, dubbed WATCH-DM, has greater accuracy in predicting incident heart failure than traditional risk-based models, and requires no specific cardiovascular biomarkers or imaging, according to Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and faculty at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The tool may help inform risk-based monitoring and introduction of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which have been shown in multiple clinical trials to prevent heart failure in at-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), Dr. Vaduganathan said.

“Patients identified at high risk based on WATCH-DM should be strongly considered for initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice,” Dr. Vaduganathan said in an interview.

WATCH-DM is available online at cvriskscores.com. Work is underway to integrate the tool into electronic health record systems at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “I expect that to be launched in the next year,” he said.

The WATCH-DM score was developed based on data from the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) trial, including 8,756 T2DM patients with inadequate glycemic control at high cardiovascular risk and no heart failure at baseline.

Starting with 147 variables, the investigators used a decision-tree machine learning approach to identify predictors of heart failure.

“What machine learning does is automate the variable selection process, as a form of artificial intelligence,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

The WATCH-DM risk score was based on the 10 best-performing predictors as selected by machine learning, including body mass index, age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, serum creatinine, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, QRS duration, prior myocardial infarction, and prior coronary artery bypass grafting.

The 5-year risk of heart failure was just 1.1% for patients with WATCH-DM scores in the lowest quintile, increasing in a graded fashion to nearly 20% (17.4%) in the highest quintile, study results show.

Findings of the study were simultaneously published in the journal Diabetes Care.

Dr. Vaduganathan said he is supported by an award from Harvard Catalyst. He provided disclosures related to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim (advisory boards), and with Novartis and the National Institutes of Health (participation on clinical endpoint committees).

SOURCE: HFSA 2019; Segar MW, Vaduganathan M et al. Diabetes Care. doi: 10.2337/dc19-0587.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide (Rybelsus) tablets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults who have not met their hemoglobin A_1c goal. It is the first glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) analogue to be approved in pill form in the United States.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval was based on results from the PIONEER trials, a series of 10 studies that assessed semaglutide against sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide in a total of 9,543 patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who received semaglutide had reduced hemoglobin A_1c levels as well as reduced body weight.

The most common adverse events reported during the PIONEER trials were nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, decreased appetite, vomiting, and constipation. The rate of adverse events were similar across trials.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists are effective medications for people with type 2 diabetes but have been underutilized, in part because until now, they have been available only as an injectable treatment. The availability of an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist represents a significant development, and primary care providers, specialists, and patients alike may now be more receptive to the use of a GLP-1 therapy to help them achieve their blood sugar goals,” said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and PIONEER clinical trial researcher.

Semaglutide is approved for once-daily use, at doses of 7 mg and 14 mg. Find the full press release on the Novo Nordisk website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide (Rybelsus) tablets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults who have not met their hemoglobin A_1c goal. It is the first glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) analogue to be approved in pill form in the United States.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval was based on results from the PIONEER trials, a series of 10 studies that assessed semaglutide against sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide in a total of 9,543 patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who received semaglutide had reduced hemoglobin A_1c levels as well as reduced body weight.

The most common adverse events reported during the PIONEER trials were nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, decreased appetite, vomiting, and constipation. The rate of adverse events were similar across trials.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists are effective medications for people with type 2 diabetes but have been underutilized, in part because until now, they have been available only as an injectable treatment. The availability of an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist represents a significant development, and primary care providers, specialists, and patients alike may now be more receptive to the use of a GLP-1 therapy to help them achieve their blood sugar goals,” said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and PIONEER clinical trial researcher.

Semaglutide is approved for once-daily use, at doses of 7 mg and 14 mg. Find the full press release on the Novo Nordisk website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide (Rybelsus) tablets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults who have not met their hemoglobin A_1c goal. It is the first glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) analogue to be approved in pill form in the United States.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval was based on results from the PIONEER trials, a series of 10 studies that assessed semaglutide against sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide in a total of 9,543 patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who received semaglutide had reduced hemoglobin A_1c levels as well as reduced body weight.

The most common adverse events reported during the PIONEER trials were nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, decreased appetite, vomiting, and constipation. The rate of adverse events were similar across trials.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists are effective medications for people with type 2 diabetes but have been underutilized, in part because until now, they have been available only as an injectable treatment. The availability of an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist represents a significant development, and primary care providers, specialists, and patients alike may now be more receptive to the use of a GLP-1 therapy to help them achieve their blood sugar goals,” said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and PIONEER clinical trial researcher.

Semaglutide is approved for once-daily use, at doses of 7 mg and 14 mg. Find the full press release on the Novo Nordisk website.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted dapagliflozin (Farxiga) a Fast Track designation for the reduction of cardiovascular death risk or disease progression in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The decision is based on results from two phase 3 trials – DAPA-HF and DELIVER – that assessed dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively.

Dapagliflozin, an oral, once-daily sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, was first approved as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy for the improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It was also granted Fast Track designation in August 2019 as a therapy for chronic renal disease, both to slow progression of renal failure and to prevent cardiovascular and renal death.

“Heart failure affects approximately 64 million people worldwide, and about half will die within 5 years of diagnosis,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development, said in the AstraZeneca press release. “This Fast Track designation for Farxiga brings us closer to fulfilling our ambition to help prevent, treat and cure heart failure, and we look forward to working with the FDA to explore Farxiga as a potential new treatment option for heart failure patients.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted dapagliflozin (Farxiga) a Fast Track designation for the reduction of cardiovascular death risk or disease progression in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The decision is based on results from two phase 3 trials – DAPA-HF and DELIVER – that assessed dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively.

Dapagliflozin, an oral, once-daily sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, was first approved as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy for the improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It was also granted Fast Track designation in August 2019 as a therapy for chronic renal disease, both to slow progression of renal failure and to prevent cardiovascular and renal death.

“Heart failure affects approximately 64 million people worldwide, and about half will die within 5 years of diagnosis,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development, said in the AstraZeneca press release. “This Fast Track designation for Farxiga brings us closer to fulfilling our ambition to help prevent, treat and cure heart failure, and we look forward to working with the FDA to explore Farxiga as a potential new treatment option for heart failure patients.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted dapagliflozin (Farxiga) a Fast Track designation for the reduction of cardiovascular death risk or disease progression in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The decision is based on results from two phase 3 trials – DAPA-HF and DELIVER – that assessed dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively.

Dapagliflozin, an oral, once-daily sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, was first approved as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy for the improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It was also granted Fast Track designation in August 2019 as a therapy for chronic renal disease, both to slow progression of renal failure and to prevent cardiovascular and renal death.

“Heart failure affects approximately 64 million people worldwide, and about half will die within 5 years of diagnosis,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development, said in the AstraZeneca press release. “This Fast Track designation for Farxiga brings us closer to fulfilling our ambition to help prevent, treat and cure heart failure, and we look forward to working with the FDA to explore Farxiga as a potential new treatment option for heart failure patients.”

[email protected]