Diabetes

A 46-year-old woman presents with a BMI of 28, a 4-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and an A1C of 9.8%. The patient is currently being treated with intensive medical therapy (IMT), including metformin 2000 mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d, and insulin glargine 12 U/d, with minimal change in A1C. Should you recommend bariatric surgery?

One in 11 Americans has diabetes, and at least 95% of those have T2DM.^2,3 The treatment of T2DM is generally multimodal to target the various mechanisms that cause hyperglycemia. Strategies may include making lifestyle modifications, decreasing insulin resistance, increasing insulin secretion, replacing insulin, and targeting incretin-hormonal pathways.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications as firstline therapy for diabetes management, but these methods are often inadequate.² In addition to various pharmacotherapeutic strategies for some populations with T2DM, the ADA recommends bariatric surgery for those with a BMI ≥ 35 and uncontrolled hyper­glycemia.^2,4

However, this recommendation is based only on short-term studies. For example, in a single-center, nonblinded RCT of 60 patients with a BMI ≥ 35, the average baseline A1C levels of 8.65 ± 1.45% were reduced to 7.7 ± 0.6% in the IMT group and to 6.4 ± 1.4% in the gastric-bypass group at 2 years.⁵ In another study, a randomized double-blind trial involving 60 moderately obese patients (BMI, 25-35), gastric bypass yielded better outcomes than sleeve gastrectomy: 93% of patients in the former group and 47% of those in the latter group achieved remission of T2DM over a 12-month period.⁶

The current study by Schauer et al examined the long-term outcomes of IMT alone vs bariatric surgery with IMT for the treatment of T2DM in patients who are overweight or obese.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

5-year follow-up: surgery + IMT works

This study was a 5-year follow-up of a nonblinded, single-center RCT comparing IMT alone to IMT with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in 150 patients with T2DM.¹ Patients were included if they were ages 20 to 60, had a BMI of 27 to 43, and had an A1C > 7%. Patients with a history of bariatric surgery, complex abdominal surgery, or uncontrolled medical or psychiatric disorders were excluded.

Patients were randomly placed in a 1:1:1 fashion into 3 groups: IMT (as defined by the ADA) only, IMT and gastric bypass, or IMT and sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an A1C ≤ 6%. Secondary outcomes included weight loss, glucose control, lipid levels, blood pressure, medication use, renal function, adverse effects, ophthalmologic outcomes, and quality of life.

Continue to: Of the 150 patients...

Of the 150 patients, 1 died during the follow-up period, leaving 149. Of these, 134 completed the 5-year follow-up. Eight patients in the IMT group and 1 patient in the sleeve gastrectomy group never initiated assigned treatment, and 6 patients were lost to follow-up. One patient from the IMT group and 1 patient from the sleeve gastrectomy group crossed over to the gastric bypass group.

Results. More patients in the bariatric surgery and sleeve gastrectomy groups achieved an A1C of ≤ 6% than in the IMT group (14 of 49 gastric bypass patients, 11 of 47 sleeve gastrectomy patients, and 2 of 38 IMT patients). Compared with those in the IMT group, the patients in the 2 surgery groups showed greater reductions from baseline in body weight and triglyceride levels and greater increases from baseline in HDL cholesterol levels; they also required less antidiabetes medication for glycemic control (see Table).¹

WHAT’S NEW?

Big benefits, minimal adverse effects

Prior studies evaluating the effect of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes were observational or had a shorter follow-up duration. This study demonstrates that bariatric surgery plus IMT has long-term benefits with minimal adverse events, compared with IMT alone.^1,5 Additionally, this study supports recommendations for bariatric surgery as treatment for T2DM in patients with a BMI ≥ 27, which is below the starting BMI (35) recommended by the ADA.^1,4

CAVEATS

Surgery is not without risks

The risk for surgical complications—eg, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe hypoglycemia requiring intervention, and ketoacidosis—in this patient population is significant.¹ Other potential complications include gastrointestinal leak, stroke, and infection.¹ Additionally, long-term complications from bariatric surgery are emerging and include choledocholithiasis, intestinal obstruction, and esophageal pathology.⁷ Extensive patient counseling is necessary to ensure that patients make an informed decision regarding surgery.

This study utilized surrogate markers (A1C, lipid levels, and body weight) as disease-oriented outcome measures. Patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, were not explored in this study.

Continue to: Due to the small sample size...

Due to the small sample size of the study, it is unclear if the outcomes of the 2 surgery groups were significantly different. Patients who underwent gastric bypass surgery had more weight loss and used less diabetes medication at the end of follow-up, compared with patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. More information is needed to determine which gastric surgery is preferable for the treatment of T2DM while minimizing adverse effects. However, both of the procedures had outcomes superior to those of IMT, and selection of a particular type of surgery should be a joint decision between the patient and provider.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Access and cost may be barriers

The major barriers to implementation are access to, and cost of, bariatric surgery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[2]:102-104).

A 46-year-old woman presents with a BMI of 28, a 4-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and an A1C of 9.8%. The patient is currently being treated with intensive medical therapy (IMT), including metformin 2000 mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d, and insulin glargine 12 U/d, with minimal change in A1C. Should you recommend bariatric surgery?

One in 11 Americans has diabetes, and at least 95% of those have T2DM.^2,3 The treatment of T2DM is generally multimodal to target the various mechanisms that cause hyperglycemia. Strategies may include making lifestyle modifications, decreasing insulin resistance, increasing insulin secretion, replacing insulin, and targeting incretin-hormonal pathways.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications as firstline therapy for diabetes management, but these methods are often inadequate.² In addition to various pharmacotherapeutic strategies for some populations with T2DM, the ADA recommends bariatric surgery for those with a BMI ≥ 35 and uncontrolled hyper­glycemia.^2,4

However, this recommendation is based only on short-term studies. For example, in a single-center, nonblinded RCT of 60 patients with a BMI ≥ 35, the average baseline A1C levels of 8.65 ± 1.45% were reduced to 7.7 ± 0.6% in the IMT group and to 6.4 ± 1.4% in the gastric-bypass group at 2 years.⁵ In another study, a randomized double-blind trial involving 60 moderately obese patients (BMI, 25-35), gastric bypass yielded better outcomes than sleeve gastrectomy: 93% of patients in the former group and 47% of those in the latter group achieved remission of T2DM over a 12-month period.⁶

The current study by Schauer et al examined the long-term outcomes of IMT alone vs bariatric surgery with IMT for the treatment of T2DM in patients who are overweight or obese.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

5-year follow-up: surgery + IMT works

This study was a 5-year follow-up of a nonblinded, single-center RCT comparing IMT alone to IMT with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in 150 patients with T2DM.¹ Patients were included if they were ages 20 to 60, had a BMI of 27 to 43, and had an A1C > 7%. Patients with a history of bariatric surgery, complex abdominal surgery, or uncontrolled medical or psychiatric disorders were excluded.

Patients were randomly placed in a 1:1:1 fashion into 3 groups: IMT (as defined by the ADA) only, IMT and gastric bypass, or IMT and sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an A1C ≤ 6%. Secondary outcomes included weight loss, glucose control, lipid levels, blood pressure, medication use, renal function, adverse effects, ophthalmologic outcomes, and quality of life.

Continue to: Of the 150 patients...

Of the 150 patients, 1 died during the follow-up period, leaving 149. Of these, 134 completed the 5-year follow-up. Eight patients in the IMT group and 1 patient in the sleeve gastrectomy group never initiated assigned treatment, and 6 patients were lost to follow-up. One patient from the IMT group and 1 patient from the sleeve gastrectomy group crossed over to the gastric bypass group.

Results. More patients in the bariatric surgery and sleeve gastrectomy groups achieved an A1C of ≤ 6% than in the IMT group (14 of 49 gastric bypass patients, 11 of 47 sleeve gastrectomy patients, and 2 of 38 IMT patients). Compared with those in the IMT group, the patients in the 2 surgery groups showed greater reductions from baseline in body weight and triglyceride levels and greater increases from baseline in HDL cholesterol levels; they also required less antidiabetes medication for glycemic control (see Table).¹

WHAT’S NEW?

Big benefits, minimal adverse effects

Prior studies evaluating the effect of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes were observational or had a shorter follow-up duration. This study demonstrates that bariatric surgery plus IMT has long-term benefits with minimal adverse events, compared with IMT alone.^1,5 Additionally, this study supports recommendations for bariatric surgery as treatment for T2DM in patients with a BMI ≥ 27, which is below the starting BMI (35) recommended by the ADA.^1,4

CAVEATS

Surgery is not without risks

The risk for surgical complications—eg, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe hypoglycemia requiring intervention, and ketoacidosis—in this patient population is significant.¹ Other potential complications include gastrointestinal leak, stroke, and infection.¹ Additionally, long-term complications from bariatric surgery are emerging and include choledocholithiasis, intestinal obstruction, and esophageal pathology.⁷ Extensive patient counseling is necessary to ensure that patients make an informed decision regarding surgery.

This study utilized surrogate markers (A1C, lipid levels, and body weight) as disease-oriented outcome measures. Patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, were not explored in this study.

Continue to: Due to the small sample size...

Due to the small sample size of the study, it is unclear if the outcomes of the 2 surgery groups were significantly different. Patients who underwent gastric bypass surgery had more weight loss and used less diabetes medication at the end of follow-up, compared with patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. More information is needed to determine which gastric surgery is preferable for the treatment of T2DM while minimizing adverse effects. However, both of the procedures had outcomes superior to those of IMT, and selection of a particular type of surgery should be a joint decision between the patient and provider.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Access and cost may be barriers

The major barriers to implementation are access to, and cost of, bariatric surgery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[2]:102-104).

A 46-year-old woman presents with a BMI of 28, a 4-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and an A1C of 9.8%. The patient is currently being treated with intensive medical therapy (IMT), including metformin 2000 mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d, and insulin glargine 12 U/d, with minimal change in A1C. Should you recommend bariatric surgery?

One in 11 Americans has diabetes, and at least 95% of those have T2DM.^2,3 The treatment of T2DM is generally multimodal to target the various mechanisms that cause hyperglycemia. Strategies may include making lifestyle modifications, decreasing insulin resistance, increasing insulin secretion, replacing insulin, and targeting incretin-hormonal pathways.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications as firstline therapy for diabetes management, but these methods are often inadequate.² In addition to various pharmacotherapeutic strategies for some populations with T2DM, the ADA recommends bariatric surgery for those with a BMI ≥ 35 and uncontrolled hyper­glycemia.^2,4

However, this recommendation is based only on short-term studies. For example, in a single-center, nonblinded RCT of 60 patients with a BMI ≥ 35, the average baseline A1C levels of 8.65 ± 1.45% were reduced to 7.7 ± 0.6% in the IMT group and to 6.4 ± 1.4% in the gastric-bypass group at 2 years.⁵ In another study, a randomized double-blind trial involving 60 moderately obese patients (BMI, 25-35), gastric bypass yielded better outcomes than sleeve gastrectomy: 93% of patients in the former group and 47% of those in the latter group achieved remission of T2DM over a 12-month period.⁶

The current study by Schauer et al examined the long-term outcomes of IMT alone vs bariatric surgery with IMT for the treatment of T2DM in patients who are overweight or obese.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

5-year follow-up: surgery + IMT works

This study was a 5-year follow-up of a nonblinded, single-center RCT comparing IMT alone to IMT with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in 150 patients with T2DM.¹ Patients were included if they were ages 20 to 60, had a BMI of 27 to 43, and had an A1C > 7%. Patients with a history of bariatric surgery, complex abdominal surgery, or uncontrolled medical or psychiatric disorders were excluded.

Patients were randomly placed in a 1:1:1 fashion into 3 groups: IMT (as defined by the ADA) only, IMT and gastric bypass, or IMT and sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an A1C ≤ 6%. Secondary outcomes included weight loss, glucose control, lipid levels, blood pressure, medication use, renal function, adverse effects, ophthalmologic outcomes, and quality of life.

Continue to: Of the 150 patients...

Of the 150 patients, 1 died during the follow-up period, leaving 149. Of these, 134 completed the 5-year follow-up. Eight patients in the IMT group and 1 patient in the sleeve gastrectomy group never initiated assigned treatment, and 6 patients were lost to follow-up. One patient from the IMT group and 1 patient from the sleeve gastrectomy group crossed over to the gastric bypass group.

Results. More patients in the bariatric surgery and sleeve gastrectomy groups achieved an A1C of ≤ 6% than in the IMT group (14 of 49 gastric bypass patients, 11 of 47 sleeve gastrectomy patients, and 2 of 38 IMT patients). Compared with those in the IMT group, the patients in the 2 surgery groups showed greater reductions from baseline in body weight and triglyceride levels and greater increases from baseline in HDL cholesterol levels; they also required less antidiabetes medication for glycemic control (see Table).¹

WHAT’S NEW?

Big benefits, minimal adverse effects

Prior studies evaluating the effect of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes were observational or had a shorter follow-up duration. This study demonstrates that bariatric surgery plus IMT has long-term benefits with minimal adverse events, compared with IMT alone.^1,5 Additionally, this study supports recommendations for bariatric surgery as treatment for T2DM in patients with a BMI ≥ 27, which is below the starting BMI (35) recommended by the ADA.^1,4

CAVEATS

Surgery is not without risks

The risk for surgical complications—eg, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe hypoglycemia requiring intervention, and ketoacidosis—in this patient population is significant.¹ Other potential complications include gastrointestinal leak, stroke, and infection.¹ Additionally, long-term complications from bariatric surgery are emerging and include choledocholithiasis, intestinal obstruction, and esophageal pathology.⁷ Extensive patient counseling is necessary to ensure that patients make an informed decision regarding surgery.

This study utilized surrogate markers (A1C, lipid levels, and body weight) as disease-oriented outcome measures. Patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, were not explored in this study.

Continue to: Due to the small sample size...

Due to the small sample size of the study, it is unclear if the outcomes of the 2 surgery groups were significantly different. Patients who underwent gastric bypass surgery had more weight loss and used less diabetes medication at the end of follow-up, compared with patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. More information is needed to determine which gastric surgery is preferable for the treatment of T2DM while minimizing adverse effects. However, both of the procedures had outcomes superior to those of IMT, and selection of a particular type of surgery should be a joint decision between the patient and provider.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Access and cost may be barriers

The major barriers to implementation are access to, and cost of, bariatric surgery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[2]:102-104).

SAN FRANCISCO – Can you be “fat but fit” if you’re obese but don’t suffer from metabolic syndrome? Some advocates have claimed you can, but new findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association provide more evidence that those extra pounds translate to extra cardiac risk.

Fat-but-fit is a misnomer, Yvonne Commodore-Mensah, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, said in an interview. “The metabolically healthy obese are not so healthy. [We found] they had a higher risk of heart disease than people who were metabolically healthy and nonobese.”

Studies began supporting the fat-but-fit “paradox” in the late 1990s. They showed “that all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular] mortality risk in obese individuals, as defined by body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, or waist circumference, who are fit (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness level above the age-specific and sex-specific 20th percentile) is not significantly different from their normal-weight and fit counterparts” (Br J Sports Med. 2018;52[3]:151-3).

However, a 2017 study had found that “metabolically healthy obese individuals had a higher risk of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure [compared with] normal weight, metabolically healthy individuals” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70[12]:1429-37). And a 2016 meta-analysis of 22 studies had produced similar results but also found that metabolically healthy obese individuals were better off, cardiac-health–wise, than those of normal weight who were metabolically unhealthy (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23[9]:956-66).

Dr. Commodore-Mensah and colleagues sought to establish through their study whether there was evidence of subclinical heart disease in people who are considered obese but metabolically healthy (Abstract 272-OR).

They tracked 11,884 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) from 1990-1992 to 2016-2018. The study, which continues today, includes participants in suburban Minneapolis; Jackson, Miss.; Forsyth County, N.C.; and Washington County, Md.

None of the participants had previous cardiovascular disease at baseline (1990-1992). The researchers divided the participants into four groups at baseline: Nonobese (with metabolic syndrome, 20% of the total number of participants; or without metabolic syndrome, 51%) and obese (with metabolic syndrome, 20%; or without metabolic syndrome, 9%).

The average age range in the groups was 56-57 years. The percentage of women in the groups ranged from 53% to 58%, except for the obese and metabolically healthy group (73%). The percentage of black participants in the groups ranged from 17% (nonobese, metabolically unhealthy) to 45% (obese, metabolically healthy).

“People who were younger, women, and black were more likely to be classified as metabolically healthy obese,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to one adjusted model with a median follow-up of 16 years and a total of 3,560 events, obese participants had a higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease, compared with their nonobese counterparts, regardless of whether they had metabolic syndrome.

When compared with the nonobese, metabolically healthy group, the risk grew in the nonobese, metabolically unhealthy group (hazard ratio, .24; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.36), as well as in the obese, metabolically healthy (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53) and the obese, metabolically unhealthy (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.90-2.35) groups.

The researchers also focused on the cardiac biomarker known as high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which indicates chronic myocardial damage. “This biomarker provides us with a window to the heart,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to previous findings reported in 2014, ARIC participants who had hs-cTnT levels of 14 ng/L or higher were much more likely than were those with undetectable levels to suffer from heart failure, death from any cause, and coronary heart disease (JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2[6]:600-7).

Based on an analysis of the hs-cTnT levels in the present study, the researchers believe obese, metabolically healthy participants fell in the intermediate range of excess subclinical myocardial damage, between the nonobese and the obese participants who are also metabolically unhealthy.

“This group is not protected from heart disease,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said. “They should be targeted, and they would benefit from behavioral changes, such as modifying their diet and increasing physical activity levels.”

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Commodore-Mensah and six coauthors reported no relevant disclosures. Two coauthors reported various disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Can you be “fat but fit” if you’re obese but don’t suffer from metabolic syndrome? Some advocates have claimed you can, but new findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association provide more evidence that those extra pounds translate to extra cardiac risk.

Fat-but-fit is a misnomer, Yvonne Commodore-Mensah, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, said in an interview. “The metabolically healthy obese are not so healthy. [We found] they had a higher risk of heart disease than people who were metabolically healthy and nonobese.”

Studies began supporting the fat-but-fit “paradox” in the late 1990s. They showed “that all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular] mortality risk in obese individuals, as defined by body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, or waist circumference, who are fit (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness level above the age-specific and sex-specific 20th percentile) is not significantly different from their normal-weight and fit counterparts” (Br J Sports Med. 2018;52[3]:151-3).

However, a 2017 study had found that “metabolically healthy obese individuals had a higher risk of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure [compared with] normal weight, metabolically healthy individuals” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70[12]:1429-37). And a 2016 meta-analysis of 22 studies had produced similar results but also found that metabolically healthy obese individuals were better off, cardiac-health–wise, than those of normal weight who were metabolically unhealthy (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23[9]:956-66).

Dr. Commodore-Mensah and colleagues sought to establish through their study whether there was evidence of subclinical heart disease in people who are considered obese but metabolically healthy (Abstract 272-OR).

They tracked 11,884 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) from 1990-1992 to 2016-2018. The study, which continues today, includes participants in suburban Minneapolis; Jackson, Miss.; Forsyth County, N.C.; and Washington County, Md.

None of the participants had previous cardiovascular disease at baseline (1990-1992). The researchers divided the participants into four groups at baseline: Nonobese (with metabolic syndrome, 20% of the total number of participants; or without metabolic syndrome, 51%) and obese (with metabolic syndrome, 20%; or without metabolic syndrome, 9%).

The average age range in the groups was 56-57 years. The percentage of women in the groups ranged from 53% to 58%, except for the obese and metabolically healthy group (73%). The percentage of black participants in the groups ranged from 17% (nonobese, metabolically unhealthy) to 45% (obese, metabolically healthy).

“People who were younger, women, and black were more likely to be classified as metabolically healthy obese,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to one adjusted model with a median follow-up of 16 years and a total of 3,560 events, obese participants had a higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease, compared with their nonobese counterparts, regardless of whether they had metabolic syndrome.

When compared with the nonobese, metabolically healthy group, the risk grew in the nonobese, metabolically unhealthy group (hazard ratio, .24; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.36), as well as in the obese, metabolically healthy (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53) and the obese, metabolically unhealthy (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.90-2.35) groups.

The researchers also focused on the cardiac biomarker known as high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which indicates chronic myocardial damage. “This biomarker provides us with a window to the heart,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to previous findings reported in 2014, ARIC participants who had hs-cTnT levels of 14 ng/L or higher were much more likely than were those with undetectable levels to suffer from heart failure, death from any cause, and coronary heart disease (JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2[6]:600-7).

Based on an analysis of the hs-cTnT levels in the present study, the researchers believe obese, metabolically healthy participants fell in the intermediate range of excess subclinical myocardial damage, between the nonobese and the obese participants who are also metabolically unhealthy.

“This group is not protected from heart disease,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said. “They should be targeted, and they would benefit from behavioral changes, such as modifying their diet and increasing physical activity levels.”

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Commodore-Mensah and six coauthors reported no relevant disclosures. Two coauthors reported various disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Can you be “fat but fit” if you’re obese but don’t suffer from metabolic syndrome? Some advocates have claimed you can, but new findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association provide more evidence that those extra pounds translate to extra cardiac risk.

Fat-but-fit is a misnomer, Yvonne Commodore-Mensah, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, said in an interview. “The metabolically healthy obese are not so healthy. [We found] they had a higher risk of heart disease than people who were metabolically healthy and nonobese.”

Studies began supporting the fat-but-fit “paradox” in the late 1990s. They showed “that all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular] mortality risk in obese individuals, as defined by body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, or waist circumference, who are fit (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness level above the age-specific and sex-specific 20th percentile) is not significantly different from their normal-weight and fit counterparts” (Br J Sports Med. 2018;52[3]:151-3).

However, a 2017 study had found that “metabolically healthy obese individuals had a higher risk of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure [compared with] normal weight, metabolically healthy individuals” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70[12]:1429-37). And a 2016 meta-analysis of 22 studies had produced similar results but also found that metabolically healthy obese individuals were better off, cardiac-health–wise, than those of normal weight who were metabolically unhealthy (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23[9]:956-66).

Dr. Commodore-Mensah and colleagues sought to establish through their study whether there was evidence of subclinical heart disease in people who are considered obese but metabolically healthy (Abstract 272-OR).

They tracked 11,884 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) from 1990-1992 to 2016-2018. The study, which continues today, includes participants in suburban Minneapolis; Jackson, Miss.; Forsyth County, N.C.; and Washington County, Md.

None of the participants had previous cardiovascular disease at baseline (1990-1992). The researchers divided the participants into four groups at baseline: Nonobese (with metabolic syndrome, 20% of the total number of participants; or without metabolic syndrome, 51%) and obese (with metabolic syndrome, 20%; or without metabolic syndrome, 9%).

The average age range in the groups was 56-57 years. The percentage of women in the groups ranged from 53% to 58%, except for the obese and metabolically healthy group (73%). The percentage of black participants in the groups ranged from 17% (nonobese, metabolically unhealthy) to 45% (obese, metabolically healthy).

“People who were younger, women, and black were more likely to be classified as metabolically healthy obese,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to one adjusted model with a median follow-up of 16 years and a total of 3,560 events, obese participants had a higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease, compared with their nonobese counterparts, regardless of whether they had metabolic syndrome.

When compared with the nonobese, metabolically healthy group, the risk grew in the nonobese, metabolically unhealthy group (hazard ratio, .24; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.36), as well as in the obese, metabolically healthy (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53) and the obese, metabolically unhealthy (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.90-2.35) groups.

The researchers also focused on the cardiac biomarker known as high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which indicates chronic myocardial damage. “This biomarker provides us with a window to the heart,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to previous findings reported in 2014, ARIC participants who had hs-cTnT levels of 14 ng/L or higher were much more likely than were those with undetectable levels to suffer from heart failure, death from any cause, and coronary heart disease (JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2[6]:600-7).

Based on an analysis of the hs-cTnT levels in the present study, the researchers believe obese, metabolically healthy participants fell in the intermediate range of excess subclinical myocardial damage, between the nonobese and the obese participants who are also metabolically unhealthy.

“This group is not protected from heart disease,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said. “They should be targeted, and they would benefit from behavioral changes, such as modifying their diet and increasing physical activity levels.”

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Commodore-Mensah and six coauthors reported no relevant disclosures. Two coauthors reported various disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – The sulfonylurea glimepiride (Amaryl) did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk in a head-to-head comparison with the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin (Tradjenta), a drug with proven cardiovascular safety, according to findings from the CAROLINA study presented at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Linagliptin’s cardiovascular safety, compared with placebo, was demonstrated in the CARMELINA study (JAMA. 2019;321[1]:69-79), but CAROLINA pitted the DPP-4 inhibitor against an active comparator, glimepiride, which along with other sulfonylureas, carries a warning for increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. The latest findings about the comparator were not expected, but seem to set aside the lingering doubts about cardiovascular safety in at least the modern-day sulfonylureas.

“The stigma that sulfonylureas have had for more than 50 years” has been lifted. “We take a lot of pride in this study,” said principal investigator and endocrinologist Julio Rosenstock, MD, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In 1970, the University Group Diabetes Program trial reported 26 cardiovascular deaths in 204 patients who received with tolbutamide – a first-generation sulfonylurea no longer in common use – compared with 10 deaths in 205 patients who received placebo (Diabetes. 1970;19[Suppl]:789-830). The finding led to a warning of increased risk of cardiovascular mortality that still appears on sulfonylurea labels today.

The results were never confirmed by subsequent studies, and debate about the cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas continued, with many physicians over the years calling for a large, rigorous trial to resolve the issue once and for all.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

However, even with the new data, “the only reason I would [use a sulfonylurea] is cost. Cost is the bottom line in the clinic,” added Dr. Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The trial findings pose no challenge to current guidelines for type 2 diabetes and the recommendation to opt first for a second-line medication with proven cardiovascular benefit, such as a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, in at-risk patients.

Boehringer Ingelheim, the maker of linagliptin, funded the study in collaboration with comarketer, Eli Lilly. Dr. Rosenstock and Dr. Marx disclosed numerous ties to Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, and other companies not associated with the study. Dr. Eckel disclosed ties with companies not associated with the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rosenstock J et al. ADA 2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – The sulfonylurea glimepiride (Amaryl) did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk in a head-to-head comparison with the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin (Tradjenta), a drug with proven cardiovascular safety, according to findings from the CAROLINA study presented at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Linagliptin’s cardiovascular safety, compared with placebo, was demonstrated in the CARMELINA study (JAMA. 2019;321[1]:69-79), but CAROLINA pitted the DPP-4 inhibitor against an active comparator, glimepiride, which along with other sulfonylureas, carries a warning for increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. The latest findings about the comparator were not expected, but seem to set aside the lingering doubts about cardiovascular safety in at least the modern-day sulfonylureas.

“The stigma that sulfonylureas have had for more than 50 years” has been lifted. “We take a lot of pride in this study,” said principal investigator and endocrinologist Julio Rosenstock, MD, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In 1970, the University Group Diabetes Program trial reported 26 cardiovascular deaths in 204 patients who received with tolbutamide – a first-generation sulfonylurea no longer in common use – compared with 10 deaths in 205 patients who received placebo (Diabetes. 1970;19[Suppl]:789-830). The finding led to a warning of increased risk of cardiovascular mortality that still appears on sulfonylurea labels today.

The results were never confirmed by subsequent studies, and debate about the cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas continued, with many physicians over the years calling for a large, rigorous trial to resolve the issue once and for all.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

However, even with the new data, “the only reason I would [use a sulfonylurea] is cost. Cost is the bottom line in the clinic,” added Dr. Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The trial findings pose no challenge to current guidelines for type 2 diabetes and the recommendation to opt first for a second-line medication with proven cardiovascular benefit, such as a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, in at-risk patients.

Boehringer Ingelheim, the maker of linagliptin, funded the study in collaboration with comarketer, Eli Lilly. Dr. Rosenstock and Dr. Marx disclosed numerous ties to Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, and other companies not associated with the study. Dr. Eckel disclosed ties with companies not associated with the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rosenstock J et al. ADA 2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – The sulfonylurea glimepiride (Amaryl) did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular risk in a head-to-head comparison with the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin (Tradjenta), a drug with proven cardiovascular safety, according to findings from the CAROLINA study presented at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Linagliptin’s cardiovascular safety, compared with placebo, was demonstrated in the CARMELINA study (JAMA. 2019;321[1]:69-79), but CAROLINA pitted the DPP-4 inhibitor against an active comparator, glimepiride, which along with other sulfonylureas, carries a warning for increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. The latest findings about the comparator were not expected, but seem to set aside the lingering doubts about cardiovascular safety in at least the modern-day sulfonylureas.

“The stigma that sulfonylureas have had for more than 50 years” has been lifted. “We take a lot of pride in this study,” said principal investigator and endocrinologist Julio Rosenstock, MD, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

In 1970, the University Group Diabetes Program trial reported 26 cardiovascular deaths in 204 patients who received with tolbutamide – a first-generation sulfonylurea no longer in common use – compared with 10 deaths in 205 patients who received placebo (Diabetes. 1970;19[Suppl]:789-830). The finding led to a warning of increased risk of cardiovascular mortality that still appears on sulfonylurea labels today.

The results were never confirmed by subsequent studies, and debate about the cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas continued, with many physicians over the years calling for a large, rigorous trial to resolve the issue once and for all.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

However, even with the new data, “the only reason I would [use a sulfonylurea] is cost. Cost is the bottom line in the clinic,” added Dr. Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora.

The trial findings pose no challenge to current guidelines for type 2 diabetes and the recommendation to opt first for a second-line medication with proven cardiovascular benefit, such as a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, in at-risk patients.

Boehringer Ingelheim, the maker of linagliptin, funded the study in collaboration with comarketer, Eli Lilly. Dr. Rosenstock and Dr. Marx disclosed numerous ties to Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, and other companies not associated with the study. Dr. Eckel disclosed ties with companies not associated with the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rosenstock J et al. ADA 2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – Are you having trouble helping patients take their diabetes medications as directed? Try installing 32-inch screens in the examination rooms for a lab result show-and-tell. Keep pharmaceutical marketers out of your hair (and office). Talk about smartphone alarms, promote auto-fill services, and understand why patients don’t adhere to their regimens.

Those are among the suggestions offered by two physicians during a symposium on drug adherence at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Nonadherence is not a case of patients being bad,” said internist and researcher Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “When half of your patients are nonadherent, I can guarantee you [they] aren’t trying to hurt themselves.”

According to Dr. Choudhry’s own research published in 2011 and based on 2008 data, about 25% of patients do not fill prescriptions after leaving their doctors’ offices. That level for diabetes medications – 42% of patients – is especially high (Am J Med. 2011;124[11]:1081.e9-22).

Other findings, he said, have suggested that half of patients fail to adhere to evidence-based prescribed regimens over the long term. And three groups have especially low levels of adherence: people of color, women, and patients who are caregivers (possibly because they are too busy caring for others to care for themselves).

Various factors affect adherence, including forgetfulness, drug interactions or side effects, and the different colors and shapes of pills. The latter can confuse patients because colors and shapes may be different from prescription to prescription even for the same medication, he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that there’s another factor: multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians that require multiple pharmacy visits. His findings suggest that adherence improves when prescriptions are consolidated to limit the need to visit the drugstore. “The chaos of our health care system leads to nonadherence,” he said (Arch Intern Med. 2011;171[9]:814-22).

Internist Lawrence Garber, MD, of Reliant Medical Group in Worcester, Mass., offered these tips about boosting drug adherence:

• Develop trust with patients. “They need to trust that I’m their advocate, and that they’re my No. 1 reason for prescribing the medication, and not making myself more money,” he said.
• Provide educational resources. “We give them resources online. If their EHR [electronic health record] identifies that they’re diabetic, then they get information about diabetes printed out.”
• Use technology to promote messages about diabetes. Dr. Garber said his clinic has installed screens in the examination rooms so that he can show patients their data. “It [makes it] very clear for them to see why what they’re doing now is not working,’’ and why there is a need to change to a different regimen. In addition, screens in the waiting room can display educational slides about diabetes.
• Set up clinic-wide medication protocols. “We’ve set up protocols and pathways for diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol to make it easy to prescribe medications that are lower cost and to make sure we’re following the same path,” Dr. Garber said.
• Stay independent. “I haven’t seen a drug rep in decades. It’s an organizational policy that we don’t see them, so we’re less likely to be biased.”
• Make it easier for patients to take medications. Dr. Garber urged colleagues to talk to their patients about using strategies such as printed pill schedules, weekly pill organizers, auto refills, and smartphone alarm reminders to facilitate adherence.

And, he said, you may wish to make it clear that you will check on whether prescriptions are filled. That way, “the patients know that you’re looking,” and it can actually lead to improved adherence.

Dr. Choudhry reported that his research has been funded by unrestricted grants to his institution from insurers, government funders, nonprofit foundations, pharmaceutical companies (including Merck, Sanofi, and Astra Zeneca), and device makers (including Medisafe). Dr. Garber reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Are you having trouble helping patients take their diabetes medications as directed? Try installing 32-inch screens in the examination rooms for a lab result show-and-tell. Keep pharmaceutical marketers out of your hair (and office). Talk about smartphone alarms, promote auto-fill services, and understand why patients don’t adhere to their regimens.

Those are among the suggestions offered by two physicians during a symposium on drug adherence at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Nonadherence is not a case of patients being bad,” said internist and researcher Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “When half of your patients are nonadherent, I can guarantee you [they] aren’t trying to hurt themselves.”

According to Dr. Choudhry’s own research published in 2011 and based on 2008 data, about 25% of patients do not fill prescriptions after leaving their doctors’ offices. That level for diabetes medications – 42% of patients – is especially high (Am J Med. 2011;124[11]:1081.e9-22).

Other findings, he said, have suggested that half of patients fail to adhere to evidence-based prescribed regimens over the long term. And three groups have especially low levels of adherence: people of color, women, and patients who are caregivers (possibly because they are too busy caring for others to care for themselves).

Various factors affect adherence, including forgetfulness, drug interactions or side effects, and the different colors and shapes of pills. The latter can confuse patients because colors and shapes may be different from prescription to prescription even for the same medication, he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that there’s another factor: multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians that require multiple pharmacy visits. His findings suggest that adherence improves when prescriptions are consolidated to limit the need to visit the drugstore. “The chaos of our health care system leads to nonadherence,” he said (Arch Intern Med. 2011;171[9]:814-22).

Internist Lawrence Garber, MD, of Reliant Medical Group in Worcester, Mass., offered these tips about boosting drug adherence:

• Develop trust with patients. “They need to trust that I’m their advocate, and that they’re my No. 1 reason for prescribing the medication, and not making myself more money,” he said.
• Provide educational resources. “We give them resources online. If their EHR [electronic health record] identifies that they’re diabetic, then they get information about diabetes printed out.”
• Use technology to promote messages about diabetes. Dr. Garber said his clinic has installed screens in the examination rooms so that he can show patients their data. “It [makes it] very clear for them to see why what they’re doing now is not working,’’ and why there is a need to change to a different regimen. In addition, screens in the waiting room can display educational slides about diabetes.
• Set up clinic-wide medication protocols. “We’ve set up protocols and pathways for diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol to make it easy to prescribe medications that are lower cost and to make sure we’re following the same path,” Dr. Garber said.
• Stay independent. “I haven’t seen a drug rep in decades. It’s an organizational policy that we don’t see them, so we’re less likely to be biased.”
• Make it easier for patients to take medications. Dr. Garber urged colleagues to talk to their patients about using strategies such as printed pill schedules, weekly pill organizers, auto refills, and smartphone alarm reminders to facilitate adherence.

And, he said, you may wish to make it clear that you will check on whether prescriptions are filled. That way, “the patients know that you’re looking,” and it can actually lead to improved adherence.

Dr. Choudhry reported that his research has been funded by unrestricted grants to his institution from insurers, government funders, nonprofit foundations, pharmaceutical companies (including Merck, Sanofi, and Astra Zeneca), and device makers (including Medisafe). Dr. Garber reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Are you having trouble helping patients take their diabetes medications as directed? Try installing 32-inch screens in the examination rooms for a lab result show-and-tell. Keep pharmaceutical marketers out of your hair (and office). Talk about smartphone alarms, promote auto-fill services, and understand why patients don’t adhere to their regimens.

Those are among the suggestions offered by two physicians during a symposium on drug adherence at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Nonadherence is not a case of patients being bad,” said internist and researcher Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “When half of your patients are nonadherent, I can guarantee you [they] aren’t trying to hurt themselves.”

According to Dr. Choudhry’s own research published in 2011 and based on 2008 data, about 25% of patients do not fill prescriptions after leaving their doctors’ offices. That level for diabetes medications – 42% of patients – is especially high (Am J Med. 2011;124[11]:1081.e9-22).

Other findings, he said, have suggested that half of patients fail to adhere to evidence-based prescribed regimens over the long term. And three groups have especially low levels of adherence: people of color, women, and patients who are caregivers (possibly because they are too busy caring for others to care for themselves).

Various factors affect adherence, including forgetfulness, drug interactions or side effects, and the different colors and shapes of pills. The latter can confuse patients because colors and shapes may be different from prescription to prescription even for the same medication, he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that there’s another factor: multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians that require multiple pharmacy visits. His findings suggest that adherence improves when prescriptions are consolidated to limit the need to visit the drugstore. “The chaos of our health care system leads to nonadherence,” he said (Arch Intern Med. 2011;171[9]:814-22).

Internist Lawrence Garber, MD, of Reliant Medical Group in Worcester, Mass., offered these tips about boosting drug adherence:

• Develop trust with patients. “They need to trust that I’m their advocate, and that they’re my No. 1 reason for prescribing the medication, and not making myself more money,” he said.
• Provide educational resources. “We give them resources online. If their EHR [electronic health record] identifies that they’re diabetic, then they get information about diabetes printed out.”
• Use technology to promote messages about diabetes. Dr. Garber said his clinic has installed screens in the examination rooms so that he can show patients their data. “It [makes it] very clear for them to see why what they’re doing now is not working,’’ and why there is a need to change to a different regimen. In addition, screens in the waiting room can display educational slides about diabetes.
• Set up clinic-wide medication protocols. “We’ve set up protocols and pathways for diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol to make it easy to prescribe medications that are lower cost and to make sure we’re following the same path,” Dr. Garber said.
• Stay independent. “I haven’t seen a drug rep in decades. It’s an organizational policy that we don’t see them, so we’re less likely to be biased.”
• Make it easier for patients to take medications. Dr. Garber urged colleagues to talk to their patients about using strategies such as printed pill schedules, weekly pill organizers, auto refills, and smartphone alarm reminders to facilitate adherence.

And, he said, you may wish to make it clear that you will check on whether prescriptions are filled. That way, “the patients know that you’re looking,” and it can actually lead to improved adherence.

Dr. Choudhry reported that his research has been funded by unrestricted grants to his institution from insurers, government funders, nonprofit foundations, pharmaceutical companies (including Merck, Sanofi, and Astra Zeneca), and device makers (including Medisafe). Dr. Garber reported no relevant disclosures.

Insights from basic and clinical research are changing the way we treat diabetes mellitus. In 2016, several key diabetes organizations, ie, the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), called for bringing therapeutic approaches in line with our updated understanding of disease pathophysiology, replacing “one-size-fits-all” management with a tailored approach.¹ This message has since been reiterated.²

Here, we review advances in our understanding of diabetes and how these inform a new model of diabetes treatment.

BETA CELLS ARE KEY

High levels of glucose and lipids damage and eventually kill beta cells through mechanisms including that of oxidative stress, so that glucose control deteriorates over time. The same processes are active in the target-organ damage seen in diabetes.^3,4 These 2 insights—that the disease arises from combinatorial, nondiscrete pressures and that it proceeds through common processes of cell damage—leads us to a more unified understanding of the mechanism of diabetes, and may eventually replace current classifications of type 1, type 2, or latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, as well as nomenclature such as “microvascular” and “macrovascular” disease.³

FIRST-LINE LIFESTYLE INTERVENTIONS

Lifestyle interventions are the first-line therapy for elevated blood glucose. Achieving and maintaining a healthy body mass index is essential to help correct insulin resistance and minimize beta-cell dysfunction.

Lifestyle modifications for overweight or obese patients with diabetes mellitus include optimal caloric intake, decreased intake of simple carbohydrates, increased physical activity, and a 3% to 5% reduction in body weight.⁵ Weight-loss drugs may be indicated in obese patients. Normalization of lipids and hypertension should be an early goal.

RIGHT MEDICATIONS, RIGHT PATIENTS

While all of the drugs approved for treating diabetes lower glucose levels, some are more beneficial than others, possessing actions beyond their effect on plasma glucose levels, both good and bad.

The AACE guideline for use of various antidiabetic medications⁶ grades factors such as risks of hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, weight gain, cardiovascular events, and renal, gastrointestinal, and bone concerns. This represents a much-needed first step toward guidance on selecting the right medications for the right patients. Risk factors (such as heart failure) and comorbidities (such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) are among the considerations for choosing treatment.

Two principles

We propose 2 principles when choosing treatment:

Use “gentle” agents, ie, those that are least likely to exhaust beta cells or damage the organs involved in diabetes-related complications. Since the disease course depends on the health of the beta cells, give preference to agents that appear to best support beta cells—ie, agents that create the least oxidative stress or wear-and-tear—as will be outlined in this article.

Diabetes is associated with risks of cardiovascular disease, cardiac events, heart failure, and accelerated renal decompensation. Thus, it is equally important to prevent damage to the cardiovascular system, kidneys, and other tissues subject to damage through glucolipotoxicity.

Balancing glycemic control and risk

The hemoglobin A_1c level is the chief target of care and an important barometer of risk of diabetes-related complications. In 2018, the American College of Physicians (ACP) relaxed its target for hemoglobin A_1c from 7% to 8%.⁸ This move was apparently to give physicians greater “wiggle room” for achieving goals in hypoglycemia-prone patients. This, however, may take a toll.

Hypoglycemia is closely tied to cardiovascular disease. Even mild and asymptomatic hypoglycemia that goes undiagnosed and unnoticed by patients has been found to be associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality, prolonged QT interval, angina, arrhythmias, myocardial dysfunction, disturbances in autonomic balance, and sudden death.^9–11

However, the ADA, AACE, American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE), and the Endocrine Society jointly issued a strong indictment of the ACP recommendation.¹² They argue that tight glucose control and its well-documented “legacy effects” on long-term outcomes should not be sacrificed.^12,13 Indeed, there is no need to abandon evidence-based best practices in care when at least 8 of the 11 classes of antidiabetes agents do not introduce the same level of risk for hypoglycemia.

Current guidelines argue for tight glucose control but generally stop short of discriminating or stratifying the mechanisms of action of the individual classes of drugs. These guidelines also do not stress targeting the particular pathways of hyperglycemia present in any given patient. However, the 2016 ADA joint statement acknowledges the need to “characterize the many paths to beta-cell dysfunction or demise and identify therapeutic approaches that best target each path.”¹

 

 

PROFILES OF DIABETES DRUGS

The sections below highlight some of the recent data on the profiles of most of the currently available agents.

Metformin: Still the first-line treatment

Current guidelines from the ACP, ADA, and AACE keep metformin¹⁴ as the backbone of treatment, although debate continues as to whether newer agents such as GLP-1 receptor agonists are superior for first-line therapy.

Pathways affected. Metformin improves insulin resistance in the liver, increases endogenous GLP-1 levels via the gut, and appears to modulate gut flora composition, which is increasingly suspected to contribute to dysmetabolism. 

Advantages, benefits. Metformin is easy to use and does not cause hypoglycemia. It was found to modestly reduce the number of cardiovascular events and deaths in a number of clinical outcome studies.^15–19

Disadvantages, adverse effects. In some patients, tolerability restricts the use of this drug at higher doses. The most common adverse effects of metformin are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, flatulence); other risks include lactic acidosis in patients with impaired kidney function, heart failure, hypoxemia, alcoholism, cirrhosis, contrast exposure, sepsis, and shock.

GLP-1 receptor agonists

GLP-1 receptor agonists^20–25 are injectable medications approved for adults with type 2 diabetes. Exenatide and liraglutide lower hemoglobin A_1c by 1 to 1.5 absolute percentage points and reduce body weight; these effects persist over the long term.²⁶ Newer once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists (albiglutide,²⁰ dulaglutide,²¹ and semaglutide²⁵) have similar benefits. In 2019, new drug applications were submitted to the FDA for the first-in-kind oral GLP-1 receptor agonists, which would improve convenience and adherence and make this class even more attractive.

Pathways affected. GLP-1 receptor agonists address multiple pathways of hyperglycemia. They increase insulin production and release, promote weight loss, and reduce insulin resistance, glucagon secretion, and inflammation. They also increase amylin, help overcome GLP-1 resistance, slow gastric emptying, and favorably modify gut flora.²⁷

Advantages, benefits. The cardioprotective actions of GLP-1 receptor agonists include reducing inflammation and dysfunction in endothelial and myocardial cells; slowing atherosclerosis; reducing oxidative stress-induced injury and scavenging of reactive oxygen species in coronary endothelial, smooth muscle, and other cells; and enhancing endogenous antioxidant defenses.²⁷ GLP-1 receptor agonism has also been found to inhibit apoptosis in cardiomyocytes, as well as in beta cells.

Several large-scale studies have shown improved outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial²⁶ found that liraglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 13% and myocardial infarctions by 22% in more than 9,000 adults with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo. Rates of microvascular outcomes were also reduced.

A retrospective database analysis of 39,275 patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with exenatide reported a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than in patients not treated with exenatide.²⁸

However, no effect on cardiovascular outcomes was found with a third GLP-1 agent, lixisenatide, in a large-scale trial in high-risk patients with diabetes.²⁹

The most recently evaluated GLP-1 receptor agonist is semaglutide. The Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6) demonstrated a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.³⁰

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects in this class include nausea, hypoglycemia, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, headache, decreased appetite, dyspepsia, fatigue, dizziness, abdominal pain, and increased lipase. The nausea can be mitigated by advising patients to stop eating at first sensation of stomach fullness.

DPP-4 inhibitors

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) is a ubiquitous enzyme that rapidly degrades GLP-1 and other endogenous peptides.³¹ Saxagliptin,³² sitagliptin,³³ linagliptin,³⁴ and alogliptin³⁵ are approved for use in the United States, and vildagliptin36 is available in Europe.

Pathways affected. These agents modify 3 pathways of hyperglycemia: they increase insulin secretion, decrease glucagon levels, and help overcome GLP-1 resistance.

Advantages, benefits. DPP-4 inhibitors have been used safely and effectively in clinically challenging populations of patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes (> 10 years).

Disadvantages, adverse effects. As this class increases GLP-1 levels only 2- to 4-fold, their efficacy is more modest than that of GLP-1 receptor agonists (hemoglobin A_1c reductions of 0.5% to 1%; neutral effects on weight).³⁷

Outcome trials have largely been neutral. Saxagliptin has been associated with an increase in admissions for heart failure. There have been a very small but statistically significant number of drug-related cases of acute pancreatitis.³⁸

The most common adverse effects with this class include headache, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infection, and elevated liver enzymes.

 

 

SGLT2 inhibitors

Drugs of this class currently available in the United States are canagliflozin,³⁹ dapagliflozin,⁴⁰ empagliflozin,⁴¹ and ertugliflozin.⁴²

Pathways affected. SGLT2 inhibitors lower the glucose reabsorption threshold in the kidney so that more glucose is excreted in the urine; they also decrease insulin resistance in muscle, liver, and fat cells (via weight loss) and possibly preserve beta-cell function by reducing glucotoxicity. A nonrenal mechanism—delayed gut absorption reducing postprandial glucose excursion—has been proposed to contribute to the glucose-lowering effects of canagliflozin.⁴³

Advantages, benefits. These agents reduce hemoglobin A_1c by about 0.5% to 1.0% from a baseline of about 8%. Because their action is independent of insulin, they can be used at any stage of type 2 diabetes, even after insulin secretion has significantly waned. Additional potential advantages include weight loss (up to 3.5% of body mass index) and lowering of systolic blood pressure (2–4 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (1–2 mm Hg).^39–42

Canagliflozin was shown in the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS)⁴⁴ to significantly reduce the overall risk of cardiovascular disease by 14% and risk of heart failure hospitalization by 33% while significantly slowing the progression of renal disease.

In the BI 10773 (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME),⁴⁵ empagliflozin reduced heart failure hospitalizations by 35%, cardiovascular deaths by 38%, and all-cause mortality by about 32%. These benefits are thought to be due to less arterial stiffness, lower sympathetic tone, and decreased arrhythmias. Notably, these dramatic benefits accrued in only about 3 years with use of add-on therapy, even though the reduction in hemoglobin A_1c was modest (0.6%), suggesting that pleiotropic effects are at work.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects of this class include urinary tract infections, yeast infections, dehydration, and hypovolemic symptoms; these can often be prevented. A trend toward increased incidence of amputations in earlier studies was not borne out in a 2018 meta-analysis of 4 observational databases.⁴⁶

Thiazolidinediones

There are currently 2 approved thiazolidine­diones in the United States, pioglitazone⁴⁷ and rosiglitazone.⁴⁸ Only pioglitazone is in common use, as rosiglitazone is associated with safety issues.⁴⁹

Pathways affected. Pioglitazone reduces insulin resistance in muscle, liver, and adipose tissue.

Advantages, benefits. Decreased levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels⁴⁹ could plausibly account for the cardiovascular benefits reported in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events.⁵⁰ Pioglitazone has also been found to improve insulin secretion, endothelial function, and diastolic dysfunction; reduce inflammation; decrease plasminogen activator inhibitor 1; reverse lipotoxicity; and help correct nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis.

Pioglitazone has also been found to reduce plaque in carotid and coronary arteries⁵¹; improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and myocardial infarction compared with insulin-sensitizing drugs⁵²; and reduce stroke and myocardial infarction in patients with insulin resistance (but not diabetes) and a recent history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (in the Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke trial).⁵³ It may also help maintain beta-cell function; the Actos Now for the Prevention of Diabetes Study found that pioglitazone reduced the risk of conversion of impaired glucose tolerance to frank diabetes by 72%.⁵⁴

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects seen with this class include weight gain and salt retention, swelling, edema,⁵⁵ and related cardiovascular consequences in certain patients. While this may be mitigatable with lifestyle changes or use in combination with a GLP-1 receptor agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor,⁵⁶ pioglitazone is contraindicated in patients with heart failure, hemodynamic instability, or hepatic dysfunction.

Concerns that pioglitazone might increase the risk of bladder cancer seem to have been put to rest when a study in nearly 200,000 patients found no statistically significant association,⁵⁷ but the warning remains in the US label.

Long-term use of this class of drugs has been associated with an increased risk of bone fractures,⁵⁸ which warrants a risk-benefit assessment in each patient.

Injected insulin: Less safe than thought

Recent research suggests that injected insulin has a less favorable safety profile than previously thought.^15–19,59 Studies of the long-term safety of insulin therapy have had inconsistent results but suggest that injected insulin is associated with poorer cardiovascular and renal outcomes (in some of the same studies that showed metformin or other agents to improve outcomes),^17–19 and the association was dose-dependent. Several studies attempted to cancel out the poorer outcomes by adjusting for hemoglobin A_1c levels, stage of disease,^{17–19,26,27} or severe hypoglycemic episodes.⁶⁰ However, it may be inappropriate to reduce the impact of these variables, as these may themselves be the mediators of any deleterious effects of exogenous insulin.

When exogenous insulin is introduced into the peripheral circulation it causes a state of persistent iatrogenic hyperinsulinemia, which leads to insulin resistance and also appears to compromise the cardiovascular system. In contrast, endogenous insulin is released into the portal system in tightly controlled amounts.^5,61 This suggests that the same insulin peptide may not be equivalently beneficial when introduced in an artificial manner.

Before starting insulin therapy, consider its side effects such as weight gain and hypoglycemia. Most (about 85%) episodes of hypoglycemia occur with basal-bolus insulin regimens.⁶² Moreover, iatrogenic hyperinsulinemia can damage the vascular system.^63,64

We recommend. Insulin therapy is used early in the course of the disease as a short-term intervention for glucolipotoxicity. However, this can be accomplished without attendant risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain by using agents such as SGLT2 inhibitors and incretins. When insulin therapy is necessary, using it as add-on therapy might be considered instead of drug-switching. We have found alternate pharmacologic approaches successful in avoiding or delaying bolus insulin therapy. And in some patients taking insulin, we have had success in progressively introducing a noninsulin agent and were ultimately able to eliminate insulin altogether.

 

 

Bromocriptine-QR

Bromocriptine-QR (quick release)⁶⁵ is a short-acting dopamine agonist that mimics the morning dopamine surge in the suprachiasmatic nucleus—the biologic clock.

Pathways affected. Bromocriptine addresses part of the brain contribution to hyperglycemia, with resultant reductions in both peripheral insulin resistance and sympathetic tone. This reduces muscle, liver, and adipose insulin resistance. It is moderately effective in glucose-lowering, especially in patients with significant insulin resistance.⁶⁶

Advantages, benefits. A 1-year clinical trial reported that bromocriptine reduced cardiovascular adverse outcomes by 39%, and the composite end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 52% compared with placebo.⁶⁷

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are nausea, rhinitis, headache, asthenia, dizziness, constipation, and sinusitis.

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (acarbose,⁶⁸ miglitol⁶⁹) work by decreasing the rate of absorption of glucose from the gastrointestinal tract.

Advantages, benefits. These drugs decrease hemoglobin A_1c by 0.5% to 0.8%.70 They are weight-neutral and do not pose a risk of hypoglycemia. Clinical studies suggest that they may delay or prevent diabetes progression. They were also found to reduce cardiovascular events, acute myocardial infarction, and the onset of hypertension.⁶⁹

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Their use remains limited due to gastrointestinal adverse effects. They may be contraindicated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, partial bowel obstruction, or severe renal or hepatic disease.

Pramlintide

Pramlintide⁷¹ is an injectable amylin analogue. It is used as monotherapy or in combination with a sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin glargine.

Pathways affected. Pramlintide decreases appetite, reduces glucagon levels, and minimizes absorption of glucose in the gut.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Common side effects include mild to moderate hypoglycemia and nausea. Nausea may help explain the ability of pramlintide to confer weight loss when used in combination with insulin.

Sulfonylureas and meglitinides

These classes are still widely used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although the AACE⁶ and ADA⁷² guidelines de-emphasize their use based on associated risks of hypoglycemia, weight gain, morbidity, mortality, and loss of effect over time.

Pathways affected. Sulfonylureas stimulate insulin secretion from beta cells.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Sulfonylureas and glinides are associated with poorer outcomes than newer agents in clinical trials^{15–19,59,60} and may be generally less beta-cell friendly.⁷³ Their harmful effects are difficult to measure in vivo, but these drugs sometimes appear to be associated with more rapid beta-cell failure and progression to insulin dependence compared with newer ones. Several large-scale registry studies have found sulfonylureas and glinides to be associated with poorer outcomes (reviewed by Herman et al).⁷⁴

Adverse effects include asthenia, headache, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, epigastric fullness, and heartburn. Although they are often selected based on their low cost, other factors may offset their cost-effectiveness, such as need for glucose monitoring and hospital charges due to sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia. Their utility is also limited by dependence on beta-cell function.

Colesevelam

Colesevelam⁷⁵ is a bile acid sequestrant and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-reducing agent that has been approved for use in diabetes. The mode of action of colesevelam in this capacity is under investigation. Its effect on hemoglobin A_1c is modest. It is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects, particularly constipation.

Ranolazine

Ranolazine⁷⁶ is an antianginal drug that also lowers glucose by increasing insulin release. It also possesses cardioprotective properties. In patients with diabetes and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, ranolazine reduced hemoglobin A_1c by 1.2% and appeared to be weight-neutral.⁷⁶ Ranolazine is under clinical development for use in diabetes. Adverse effects include dizziness, headache, constipation, and nausea.


Rational combinations of agents

The ideal strategy would use combinations of agents that mechanistically complement one another and address each path of hyperglycemia present in a patient. This approach should supplant the former approaches of adding-on agents only after treatment failure or sequentially trying first-, second-, and third-line treatments.

Examples of synergistic combinations include those that target fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose, reduce reliance on insulin with add-on therapies, or manage hyperglycemia in specific patient groups, such as renal-impaired patients.

Large-scale long-term clinical studies are needed to determine the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of various combinations and whether they confer additive benefits. Some studies have begun to explore possible combinations.

Combined metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide was reported to delay progression of diabetes in early dysglycemia.^77,78 Notably, this combination addresses multiple mediating pathways of hyperglycemia (Table 1).

A GLP-1 receptor agonist with an SGLT2 inhibitor would be another intriguing combination, as the mechanisms of action of these 2 classes complement one another. In limited clinical trials—the DURATION-8 study (lasting 26 weeks),⁷⁹ the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (18 weeks),⁸⁰ and a 24-week study in nondiabetic obese patients⁸¹—additive benefits were also seen in systolic blood pressure, body weight, and cardiac risk factors by adding an SGLT2 inhibitor to a GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with either agent alone. In theory, these improvements might slow or reverse cardiorenal compromise. Lower doses of 1 or more may be possible, and the regimen could prove cost-effective and life-sparing should it slow the progression of the disease and the onset of its complications. A clinical study of this combination is under way (Ralph DeFronzo, personal communication, July 2018). Similarly, the combination of metformin, saxagliptin and dapagliflozin has been shown to be effective.⁸²

CONCLUSION

Care for diabetes mellitus can be particularly challenging for the primary care physician. The progressive nature of diabetes, with worsening hyperglycemia over the course of the disease, further complicates disease management.

Best practices for care nonetheless need to evolve with well-evidenced data, and without years of delay for “trickle-down” education from the specialties to primary care. We have arrived at a juncture to leverage therapies that address the 11 mediating pathways of hyperglycemia, optimally protect beta cells, minimize hypoglycemia, manage risk factors associated with diabetes, and improve diabetes-related outcomes.

Insights from basic and clinical research are changing the way we treat diabetes mellitus. In 2016, several key diabetes organizations, ie, the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), called for bringing therapeutic approaches in line with our updated understanding of disease pathophysiology, replacing “one-size-fits-all” management with a tailored approach.¹ This message has since been reiterated.²

Here, we review advances in our understanding of diabetes and how these inform a new model of diabetes treatment.

BETA CELLS ARE KEY

High levels of glucose and lipids damage and eventually kill beta cells through mechanisms including that of oxidative stress, so that glucose control deteriorates over time. The same processes are active in the target-organ damage seen in diabetes.^3,4 These 2 insights—that the disease arises from combinatorial, nondiscrete pressures and that it proceeds through common processes of cell damage—leads us to a more unified understanding of the mechanism of diabetes, and may eventually replace current classifications of type 1, type 2, or latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, as well as nomenclature such as “microvascular” and “macrovascular” disease.³

FIRST-LINE LIFESTYLE INTERVENTIONS

Lifestyle interventions are the first-line therapy for elevated blood glucose. Achieving and maintaining a healthy body mass index is essential to help correct insulin resistance and minimize beta-cell dysfunction.

Lifestyle modifications for overweight or obese patients with diabetes mellitus include optimal caloric intake, decreased intake of simple carbohydrates, increased physical activity, and a 3% to 5% reduction in body weight.⁵ Weight-loss drugs may be indicated in obese patients. Normalization of lipids and hypertension should be an early goal.

RIGHT MEDICATIONS, RIGHT PATIENTS

While all of the drugs approved for treating diabetes lower glucose levels, some are more beneficial than others, possessing actions beyond their effect on plasma glucose levels, both good and bad.

The AACE guideline for use of various antidiabetic medications⁶ grades factors such as risks of hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, weight gain, cardiovascular events, and renal, gastrointestinal, and bone concerns. This represents a much-needed first step toward guidance on selecting the right medications for the right patients. Risk factors (such as heart failure) and comorbidities (such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) are among the considerations for choosing treatment.

Two principles

We propose 2 principles when choosing treatment:

Use “gentle” agents, ie, those that are least likely to exhaust beta cells or damage the organs involved in diabetes-related complications. Since the disease course depends on the health of the beta cells, give preference to agents that appear to best support beta cells—ie, agents that create the least oxidative stress or wear-and-tear—as will be outlined in this article.

Diabetes is associated with risks of cardiovascular disease, cardiac events, heart failure, and accelerated renal decompensation. Thus, it is equally important to prevent damage to the cardiovascular system, kidneys, and other tissues subject to damage through glucolipotoxicity.

Balancing glycemic control and risk

The hemoglobin A_1c level is the chief target of care and an important barometer of risk of diabetes-related complications. In 2018, the American College of Physicians (ACP) relaxed its target for hemoglobin A_1c from 7% to 8%.⁸ This move was apparently to give physicians greater “wiggle room” for achieving goals in hypoglycemia-prone patients. This, however, may take a toll.

Hypoglycemia is closely tied to cardiovascular disease. Even mild and asymptomatic hypoglycemia that goes undiagnosed and unnoticed by patients has been found to be associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality, prolonged QT interval, angina, arrhythmias, myocardial dysfunction, disturbances in autonomic balance, and sudden death.^9–11

However, the ADA, AACE, American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE), and the Endocrine Society jointly issued a strong indictment of the ACP recommendation.¹² They argue that tight glucose control and its well-documented “legacy effects” on long-term outcomes should not be sacrificed.^12,13 Indeed, there is no need to abandon evidence-based best practices in care when at least 8 of the 11 classes of antidiabetes agents do not introduce the same level of risk for hypoglycemia.

Current guidelines argue for tight glucose control but generally stop short of discriminating or stratifying the mechanisms of action of the individual classes of drugs. These guidelines also do not stress targeting the particular pathways of hyperglycemia present in any given patient. However, the 2016 ADA joint statement acknowledges the need to “characterize the many paths to beta-cell dysfunction or demise and identify therapeutic approaches that best target each path.”¹

 

 

PROFILES OF DIABETES DRUGS

The sections below highlight some of the recent data on the profiles of most of the currently available agents.

Metformin: Still the first-line treatment

Current guidelines from the ACP, ADA, and AACE keep metformin¹⁴ as the backbone of treatment, although debate continues as to whether newer agents such as GLP-1 receptor agonists are superior for first-line therapy.

Pathways affected. Metformin improves insulin resistance in the liver, increases endogenous GLP-1 levels via the gut, and appears to modulate gut flora composition, which is increasingly suspected to contribute to dysmetabolism. 

Advantages, benefits. Metformin is easy to use and does not cause hypoglycemia. It was found to modestly reduce the number of cardiovascular events and deaths in a number of clinical outcome studies.^15–19

Disadvantages, adverse effects. In some patients, tolerability restricts the use of this drug at higher doses. The most common adverse effects of metformin are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, flatulence); other risks include lactic acidosis in patients with impaired kidney function, heart failure, hypoxemia, alcoholism, cirrhosis, contrast exposure, sepsis, and shock.

GLP-1 receptor agonists

GLP-1 receptor agonists^20–25 are injectable medications approved for adults with type 2 diabetes. Exenatide and liraglutide lower hemoglobin A_1c by 1 to 1.5 absolute percentage points and reduce body weight; these effects persist over the long term.²⁶ Newer once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists (albiglutide,²⁰ dulaglutide,²¹ and semaglutide²⁵) have similar benefits. In 2019, new drug applications were submitted to the FDA for the first-in-kind oral GLP-1 receptor agonists, which would improve convenience and adherence and make this class even more attractive.

Pathways affected. GLP-1 receptor agonists address multiple pathways of hyperglycemia. They increase insulin production and release, promote weight loss, and reduce insulin resistance, glucagon secretion, and inflammation. They also increase amylin, help overcome GLP-1 resistance, slow gastric emptying, and favorably modify gut flora.²⁷

Advantages, benefits. The cardioprotective actions of GLP-1 receptor agonists include reducing inflammation and dysfunction in endothelial and myocardial cells; slowing atherosclerosis; reducing oxidative stress-induced injury and scavenging of reactive oxygen species in coronary endothelial, smooth muscle, and other cells; and enhancing endogenous antioxidant defenses.²⁷ GLP-1 receptor agonism has also been found to inhibit apoptosis in cardiomyocytes, as well as in beta cells.

Several large-scale studies have shown improved outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial²⁶ found that liraglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 13% and myocardial infarctions by 22% in more than 9,000 adults with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo. Rates of microvascular outcomes were also reduced.

A retrospective database analysis of 39,275 patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with exenatide reported a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than in patients not treated with exenatide.²⁸

However, no effect on cardiovascular outcomes was found with a third GLP-1 agent, lixisenatide, in a large-scale trial in high-risk patients with diabetes.²⁹

The most recently evaluated GLP-1 receptor agonist is semaglutide. The Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6) demonstrated a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.³⁰

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects in this class include nausea, hypoglycemia, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, headache, decreased appetite, dyspepsia, fatigue, dizziness, abdominal pain, and increased lipase. The nausea can be mitigated by advising patients to stop eating at first sensation of stomach fullness.

DPP-4 inhibitors

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) is a ubiquitous enzyme that rapidly degrades GLP-1 and other endogenous peptides.³¹ Saxagliptin,³² sitagliptin,³³ linagliptin,³⁴ and alogliptin³⁵ are approved for use in the United States, and vildagliptin36 is available in Europe.

Pathways affected. These agents modify 3 pathways of hyperglycemia: they increase insulin secretion, decrease glucagon levels, and help overcome GLP-1 resistance.

Advantages, benefits. DPP-4 inhibitors have been used safely and effectively in clinically challenging populations of patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes (> 10 years).

Disadvantages, adverse effects. As this class increases GLP-1 levels only 2- to 4-fold, their efficacy is more modest than that of GLP-1 receptor agonists (hemoglobin A_1c reductions of 0.5% to 1%; neutral effects on weight).³⁷

Outcome trials have largely been neutral. Saxagliptin has been associated with an increase in admissions for heart failure. There have been a very small but statistically significant number of drug-related cases of acute pancreatitis.³⁸

The most common adverse effects with this class include headache, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infection, and elevated liver enzymes.

 

 

SGLT2 inhibitors

Drugs of this class currently available in the United States are canagliflozin,³⁹ dapagliflozin,⁴⁰ empagliflozin,⁴¹ and ertugliflozin.⁴²

Pathways affected. SGLT2 inhibitors lower the glucose reabsorption threshold in the kidney so that more glucose is excreted in the urine; they also decrease insulin resistance in muscle, liver, and fat cells (via weight loss) and possibly preserve beta-cell function by reducing glucotoxicity. A nonrenal mechanism—delayed gut absorption reducing postprandial glucose excursion—has been proposed to contribute to the glucose-lowering effects of canagliflozin.⁴³

Advantages, benefits. These agents reduce hemoglobin A_1c by about 0.5% to 1.0% from a baseline of about 8%. Because their action is independent of insulin, they can be used at any stage of type 2 diabetes, even after insulin secretion has significantly waned. Additional potential advantages include weight loss (up to 3.5% of body mass index) and lowering of systolic blood pressure (2–4 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (1–2 mm Hg).^39–42

Canagliflozin was shown in the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS)⁴⁴ to significantly reduce the overall risk of cardiovascular disease by 14% and risk of heart failure hospitalization by 33% while significantly slowing the progression of renal disease.

In the BI 10773 (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME),⁴⁵ empagliflozin reduced heart failure hospitalizations by 35%, cardiovascular deaths by 38%, and all-cause mortality by about 32%. These benefits are thought to be due to less arterial stiffness, lower sympathetic tone, and decreased arrhythmias. Notably, these dramatic benefits accrued in only about 3 years with use of add-on therapy, even though the reduction in hemoglobin A_1c was modest (0.6%), suggesting that pleiotropic effects are at work.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects of this class include urinary tract infections, yeast infections, dehydration, and hypovolemic symptoms; these can often be prevented. A trend toward increased incidence of amputations in earlier studies was not borne out in a 2018 meta-analysis of 4 observational databases.⁴⁶

Thiazolidinediones

There are currently 2 approved thiazolidine­diones in the United States, pioglitazone⁴⁷ and rosiglitazone.⁴⁸ Only pioglitazone is in common use, as rosiglitazone is associated with safety issues.⁴⁹

Pathways affected. Pioglitazone reduces insulin resistance in muscle, liver, and adipose tissue.

Advantages, benefits. Decreased levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels⁴⁹ could plausibly account for the cardiovascular benefits reported in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events.⁵⁰ Pioglitazone has also been found to improve insulin secretion, endothelial function, and diastolic dysfunction; reduce inflammation; decrease plasminogen activator inhibitor 1; reverse lipotoxicity; and help correct nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis.

Pioglitazone has also been found to reduce plaque in carotid and coronary arteries⁵¹; improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and myocardial infarction compared with insulin-sensitizing drugs⁵²; and reduce stroke and myocardial infarction in patients with insulin resistance (but not diabetes) and a recent history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (in the Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke trial).⁵³ It may also help maintain beta-cell function; the Actos Now for the Prevention of Diabetes Study found that pioglitazone reduced the risk of conversion of impaired glucose tolerance to frank diabetes by 72%.⁵⁴

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects seen with this class include weight gain and salt retention, swelling, edema,⁵⁵ and related cardiovascular consequences in certain patients. While this may be mitigatable with lifestyle changes or use in combination with a GLP-1 receptor agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor,⁵⁶ pioglitazone is contraindicated in patients with heart failure, hemodynamic instability, or hepatic dysfunction.

Concerns that pioglitazone might increase the risk of bladder cancer seem to have been put to rest when a study in nearly 200,000 patients found no statistically significant association,⁵⁷ but the warning remains in the US label.

Long-term use of this class of drugs has been associated with an increased risk of bone fractures,⁵⁸ which warrants a risk-benefit assessment in each patient.

Injected insulin: Less safe than thought

Recent research suggests that injected insulin has a less favorable safety profile than previously thought.^15–19,59 Studies of the long-term safety of insulin therapy have had inconsistent results but suggest that injected insulin is associated with poorer cardiovascular and renal outcomes (in some of the same studies that showed metformin or other agents to improve outcomes),^17–19 and the association was dose-dependent. Several studies attempted to cancel out the poorer outcomes by adjusting for hemoglobin A_1c levels, stage of disease,^{17–19,26,27} or severe hypoglycemic episodes.⁶⁰ However, it may be inappropriate to reduce the impact of these variables, as these may themselves be the mediators of any deleterious effects of exogenous insulin.

When exogenous insulin is introduced into the peripheral circulation it causes a state of persistent iatrogenic hyperinsulinemia, which leads to insulin resistance and also appears to compromise the cardiovascular system. In contrast, endogenous insulin is released into the portal system in tightly controlled amounts.^5,61 This suggests that the same insulin peptide may not be equivalently beneficial when introduced in an artificial manner.

Before starting insulin therapy, consider its side effects such as weight gain and hypoglycemia. Most (about 85%) episodes of hypoglycemia occur with basal-bolus insulin regimens.⁶² Moreover, iatrogenic hyperinsulinemia can damage the vascular system.^63,64

We recommend. Insulin therapy is used early in the course of the disease as a short-term intervention for glucolipotoxicity. However, this can be accomplished without attendant risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain by using agents such as SGLT2 inhibitors and incretins. When insulin therapy is necessary, using it as add-on therapy might be considered instead of drug-switching. We have found alternate pharmacologic approaches successful in avoiding or delaying bolus insulin therapy. And in some patients taking insulin, we have had success in progressively introducing a noninsulin agent and were ultimately able to eliminate insulin altogether.

 

 

Bromocriptine-QR

Bromocriptine-QR (quick release)⁶⁵ is a short-acting dopamine agonist that mimics the morning dopamine surge in the suprachiasmatic nucleus—the biologic clock.

Pathways affected. Bromocriptine addresses part of the brain contribution to hyperglycemia, with resultant reductions in both peripheral insulin resistance and sympathetic tone. This reduces muscle, liver, and adipose insulin resistance. It is moderately effective in glucose-lowering, especially in patients with significant insulin resistance.⁶⁶

Advantages, benefits. A 1-year clinical trial reported that bromocriptine reduced cardiovascular adverse outcomes by 39%, and the composite end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 52% compared with placebo.⁶⁷

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are nausea, rhinitis, headache, asthenia, dizziness, constipation, and sinusitis.

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (acarbose,⁶⁸ miglitol⁶⁹) work by decreasing the rate of absorption of glucose from the gastrointestinal tract.

Advantages, benefits. These drugs decrease hemoglobin A_1c by 0.5% to 0.8%.70 They are weight-neutral and do not pose a risk of hypoglycemia. Clinical studies suggest that they may delay or prevent diabetes progression. They were also found to reduce cardiovascular events, acute myocardial infarction, and the onset of hypertension.⁶⁹

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Their use remains limited due to gastrointestinal adverse effects. They may be contraindicated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, partial bowel obstruction, or severe renal or hepatic disease.

Pramlintide

Pramlintide⁷¹ is an injectable amylin analogue. It is used as monotherapy or in combination with a sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin glargine.

Pathways affected. Pramlintide decreases appetite, reduces glucagon levels, and minimizes absorption of glucose in the gut.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Common side effects include mild to moderate hypoglycemia and nausea. Nausea may help explain the ability of pramlintide to confer weight loss when used in combination with insulin.

Sulfonylureas and meglitinides

These classes are still widely used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although the AACE⁶ and ADA⁷² guidelines de-emphasize their use based on associated risks of hypoglycemia, weight gain, morbidity, mortality, and loss of effect over time.

Pathways affected. Sulfonylureas stimulate insulin secretion from beta cells.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Sulfonylureas and glinides are associated with poorer outcomes than newer agents in clinical trials^{15–19,59,60} and may be generally less beta-cell friendly.⁷³ Their harmful effects are difficult to measure in vivo, but these drugs sometimes appear to be associated with more rapid beta-cell failure and progression to insulin dependence compared with newer ones. Several large-scale registry studies have found sulfonylureas and glinides to be associated with poorer outcomes (reviewed by Herman et al).⁷⁴

Adverse effects include asthenia, headache, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, epigastric fullness, and heartburn. Although they are often selected based on their low cost, other factors may offset their cost-effectiveness, such as need for glucose monitoring and hospital charges due to sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia. Their utility is also limited by dependence on beta-cell function.

Colesevelam

Colesevelam⁷⁵ is a bile acid sequestrant and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-reducing agent that has been approved for use in diabetes. The mode of action of colesevelam in this capacity is under investigation. Its effect on hemoglobin A_1c is modest. It is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects, particularly constipation.

Ranolazine

Ranolazine⁷⁶ is an antianginal drug that also lowers glucose by increasing insulin release. It also possesses cardioprotective properties. In patients with diabetes and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, ranolazine reduced hemoglobin A_1c by 1.2% and appeared to be weight-neutral.⁷⁶ Ranolazine is under clinical development for use in diabetes. Adverse effects include dizziness, headache, constipation, and nausea.


Rational combinations of agents

The ideal strategy would use combinations of agents that mechanistically complement one another and address each path of hyperglycemia present in a patient. This approach should supplant the former approaches of adding-on agents only after treatment failure or sequentially trying first-, second-, and third-line treatments.

Examples of synergistic combinations include those that target fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose, reduce reliance on insulin with add-on therapies, or manage hyperglycemia in specific patient groups, such as renal-impaired patients.

Large-scale long-term clinical studies are needed to determine the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of various combinations and whether they confer additive benefits. Some studies have begun to explore possible combinations.

Combined metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide was reported to delay progression of diabetes in early dysglycemia.^77,78 Notably, this combination addresses multiple mediating pathways of hyperglycemia (Table 1).

A GLP-1 receptor agonist with an SGLT2 inhibitor would be another intriguing combination, as the mechanisms of action of these 2 classes complement one another. In limited clinical trials—the DURATION-8 study (lasting 26 weeks),⁷⁹ the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (18 weeks),⁸⁰ and a 24-week study in nondiabetic obese patients⁸¹—additive benefits were also seen in systolic blood pressure, body weight, and cardiac risk factors by adding an SGLT2 inhibitor to a GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with either agent alone. In theory, these improvements might slow or reverse cardiorenal compromise. Lower doses of 1 or more may be possible, and the regimen could prove cost-effective and life-sparing should it slow the progression of the disease and the onset of its complications. A clinical study of this combination is under way (Ralph DeFronzo, personal communication, July 2018). Similarly, the combination of metformin, saxagliptin and dapagliflozin has been shown to be effective.⁸²

CONCLUSION

Care for diabetes mellitus can be particularly challenging for the primary care physician. The progressive nature of diabetes, with worsening hyperglycemia over the course of the disease, further complicates disease management.

Best practices for care nonetheless need to evolve with well-evidenced data, and without years of delay for “trickle-down” education from the specialties to primary care. We have arrived at a juncture to leverage therapies that address the 11 mediating pathways of hyperglycemia, optimally protect beta cells, minimize hypoglycemia, manage risk factors associated with diabetes, and improve diabetes-related outcomes.

Insights from basic and clinical research are changing the way we treat diabetes mellitus. In 2016, several key diabetes organizations, ie, the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), called for bringing therapeutic approaches in line with our updated understanding of disease pathophysiology, replacing “one-size-fits-all” management with a tailored approach.¹ This message has since been reiterated.²

Here, we review advances in our understanding of diabetes and how these inform a new model of diabetes treatment.

BETA CELLS ARE KEY

High levels of glucose and lipids damage and eventually kill beta cells through mechanisms including that of oxidative stress, so that glucose control deteriorates over time. The same processes are active in the target-organ damage seen in diabetes.^3,4 These 2 insights—that the disease arises from combinatorial, nondiscrete pressures and that it proceeds through common processes of cell damage—leads us to a more unified understanding of the mechanism of diabetes, and may eventually replace current classifications of type 1, type 2, or latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, as well as nomenclature such as “microvascular” and “macrovascular” disease.³

FIRST-LINE LIFESTYLE INTERVENTIONS

Lifestyle interventions are the first-line therapy for elevated blood glucose. Achieving and maintaining a healthy body mass index is essential to help correct insulin resistance and minimize beta-cell dysfunction.

Lifestyle modifications for overweight or obese patients with diabetes mellitus include optimal caloric intake, decreased intake of simple carbohydrates, increased physical activity, and a 3% to 5% reduction in body weight.⁵ Weight-loss drugs may be indicated in obese patients. Normalization of lipids and hypertension should be an early goal.

RIGHT MEDICATIONS, RIGHT PATIENTS

While all of the drugs approved for treating diabetes lower glucose levels, some are more beneficial than others, possessing actions beyond their effect on plasma glucose levels, both good and bad.

The AACE guideline for use of various antidiabetic medications⁶ grades factors such as risks of hypoglycemia, ketoacidosis, weight gain, cardiovascular events, and renal, gastrointestinal, and bone concerns. This represents a much-needed first step toward guidance on selecting the right medications for the right patients. Risk factors (such as heart failure) and comorbidities (such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) are among the considerations for choosing treatment.

Two principles

We propose 2 principles when choosing treatment:

Use “gentle” agents, ie, those that are least likely to exhaust beta cells or damage the organs involved in diabetes-related complications. Since the disease course depends on the health of the beta cells, give preference to agents that appear to best support beta cells—ie, agents that create the least oxidative stress or wear-and-tear—as will be outlined in this article.

Diabetes is associated with risks of cardiovascular disease, cardiac events, heart failure, and accelerated renal decompensation. Thus, it is equally important to prevent damage to the cardiovascular system, kidneys, and other tissues subject to damage through glucolipotoxicity.

Balancing glycemic control and risk

The hemoglobin A_1c level is the chief target of care and an important barometer of risk of diabetes-related complications. In 2018, the American College of Physicians (ACP) relaxed its target for hemoglobin A_1c from 7% to 8%.⁸ This move was apparently to give physicians greater “wiggle room” for achieving goals in hypoglycemia-prone patients. This, however, may take a toll.

Hypoglycemia is closely tied to cardiovascular disease. Even mild and asymptomatic hypoglycemia that goes undiagnosed and unnoticed by patients has been found to be associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality, prolonged QT interval, angina, arrhythmias, myocardial dysfunction, disturbances in autonomic balance, and sudden death.^9–11

However, the ADA, AACE, American Association of Diabetes Educators (AADE), and the Endocrine Society jointly issued a strong indictment of the ACP recommendation.¹² They argue that tight glucose control and its well-documented “legacy effects” on long-term outcomes should not be sacrificed.^12,13 Indeed, there is no need to abandon evidence-based best practices in care when at least 8 of the 11 classes of antidiabetes agents do not introduce the same level of risk for hypoglycemia.

Current guidelines argue for tight glucose control but generally stop short of discriminating or stratifying the mechanisms of action of the individual classes of drugs. These guidelines also do not stress targeting the particular pathways of hyperglycemia present in any given patient. However, the 2016 ADA joint statement acknowledges the need to “characterize the many paths to beta-cell dysfunction or demise and identify therapeutic approaches that best target each path.”¹

 

 

PROFILES OF DIABETES DRUGS

The sections below highlight some of the recent data on the profiles of most of the currently available agents.

Metformin: Still the first-line treatment

Current guidelines from the ACP, ADA, and AACE keep metformin¹⁴ as the backbone of treatment, although debate continues as to whether newer agents such as GLP-1 receptor agonists are superior for first-line therapy.

Pathways affected. Metformin improves insulin resistance in the liver, increases endogenous GLP-1 levels via the gut, and appears to modulate gut flora composition, which is increasingly suspected to contribute to dysmetabolism. 

Advantages, benefits. Metformin is easy to use and does not cause hypoglycemia. It was found to modestly reduce the number of cardiovascular events and deaths in a number of clinical outcome studies.^15–19

Disadvantages, adverse effects. In some patients, tolerability restricts the use of this drug at higher doses. The most common adverse effects of metformin are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, flatulence); other risks include lactic acidosis in patients with impaired kidney function, heart failure, hypoxemia, alcoholism, cirrhosis, contrast exposure, sepsis, and shock.

GLP-1 receptor agonists

GLP-1 receptor agonists^20–25 are injectable medications approved for adults with type 2 diabetes. Exenatide and liraglutide lower hemoglobin A_1c by 1 to 1.5 absolute percentage points and reduce body weight; these effects persist over the long term.²⁶ Newer once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists (albiglutide,²⁰ dulaglutide,²¹ and semaglutide²⁵) have similar benefits. In 2019, new drug applications were submitted to the FDA for the first-in-kind oral GLP-1 receptor agonists, which would improve convenience and adherence and make this class even more attractive.

Pathways affected. GLP-1 receptor agonists address multiple pathways of hyperglycemia. They increase insulin production and release, promote weight loss, and reduce insulin resistance, glucagon secretion, and inflammation. They also increase amylin, help overcome GLP-1 resistance, slow gastric emptying, and favorably modify gut flora.²⁷

Advantages, benefits. The cardioprotective actions of GLP-1 receptor agonists include reducing inflammation and dysfunction in endothelial and myocardial cells; slowing atherosclerosis; reducing oxidative stress-induced injury and scavenging of reactive oxygen species in coronary endothelial, smooth muscle, and other cells; and enhancing endogenous antioxidant defenses.²⁷ GLP-1 receptor agonism has also been found to inhibit apoptosis in cardiomyocytes, as well as in beta cells.

Several large-scale studies have shown improved outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial²⁶ found that liraglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 13% and myocardial infarctions by 22% in more than 9,000 adults with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo. Rates of microvascular outcomes were also reduced.

A retrospective database analysis of 39,275 patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with exenatide reported a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than in patients not treated with exenatide.²⁸

However, no effect on cardiovascular outcomes was found with a third GLP-1 agent, lixisenatide, in a large-scale trial in high-risk patients with diabetes.²⁹

The most recently evaluated GLP-1 receptor agonist is semaglutide. The Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6) demonstrated a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.³⁰

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects in this class include nausea, hypoglycemia, diarrhea, constipation, vomiting, headache, decreased appetite, dyspepsia, fatigue, dizziness, abdominal pain, and increased lipase. The nausea can be mitigated by advising patients to stop eating at first sensation of stomach fullness.

DPP-4 inhibitors

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) is a ubiquitous enzyme that rapidly degrades GLP-1 and other endogenous peptides.³¹ Saxagliptin,³² sitagliptin,³³ linagliptin,³⁴ and alogliptin³⁵ are approved for use in the United States, and vildagliptin36 is available in Europe.

Pathways affected. These agents modify 3 pathways of hyperglycemia: they increase insulin secretion, decrease glucagon levels, and help overcome GLP-1 resistance.

Advantages, benefits. DPP-4 inhibitors have been used safely and effectively in clinically challenging populations of patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes (> 10 years).

Disadvantages, adverse effects. As this class increases GLP-1 levels only 2- to 4-fold, their efficacy is more modest than that of GLP-1 receptor agonists (hemoglobin A_1c reductions of 0.5% to 1%; neutral effects on weight).³⁷

Outcome trials have largely been neutral. Saxagliptin has been associated with an increase in admissions for heart failure. There have been a very small but statistically significant number of drug-related cases of acute pancreatitis.³⁸

The most common adverse effects with this class include headache, nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, upper respiratory tract infection, and elevated liver enzymes.

 

 

SGLT2 inhibitors

Drugs of this class currently available in the United States are canagliflozin,³⁹ dapagliflozin,⁴⁰ empagliflozin,⁴¹ and ertugliflozin.⁴²

Pathways affected. SGLT2 inhibitors lower the glucose reabsorption threshold in the kidney so that more glucose is excreted in the urine; they also decrease insulin resistance in muscle, liver, and fat cells (via weight loss) and possibly preserve beta-cell function by reducing glucotoxicity. A nonrenal mechanism—delayed gut absorption reducing postprandial glucose excursion—has been proposed to contribute to the glucose-lowering effects of canagliflozin.⁴³

Advantages, benefits. These agents reduce hemoglobin A_1c by about 0.5% to 1.0% from a baseline of about 8%. Because their action is independent of insulin, they can be used at any stage of type 2 diabetes, even after insulin secretion has significantly waned. Additional potential advantages include weight loss (up to 3.5% of body mass index) and lowering of systolic blood pressure (2–4 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (1–2 mm Hg).^39–42

Canagliflozin was shown in the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS)⁴⁴ to significantly reduce the overall risk of cardiovascular disease by 14% and risk of heart failure hospitalization by 33% while significantly slowing the progression of renal disease.

In the BI 10773 (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME),⁴⁵ empagliflozin reduced heart failure hospitalizations by 35%, cardiovascular deaths by 38%, and all-cause mortality by about 32%. These benefits are thought to be due to less arterial stiffness, lower sympathetic tone, and decreased arrhythmias. Notably, these dramatic benefits accrued in only about 3 years with use of add-on therapy, even though the reduction in hemoglobin A_1c was modest (0.6%), suggesting that pleiotropic effects are at work.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects of this class include urinary tract infections, yeast infections, dehydration, and hypovolemic symptoms; these can often be prevented. A trend toward increased incidence of amputations in earlier studies was not borne out in a 2018 meta-analysis of 4 observational databases.⁴⁶

Thiazolidinediones

There are currently 2 approved thiazolidine­diones in the United States, pioglitazone⁴⁷ and rosiglitazone.⁴⁸ Only pioglitazone is in common use, as rosiglitazone is associated with safety issues.⁴⁹

Pathways affected. Pioglitazone reduces insulin resistance in muscle, liver, and adipose tissue.

Advantages, benefits. Decreased levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels⁴⁹ could plausibly account for the cardiovascular benefits reported in the Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events.⁵⁰ Pioglitazone has also been found to improve insulin secretion, endothelial function, and diastolic dysfunction; reduce inflammation; decrease plasminogen activator inhibitor 1; reverse lipotoxicity; and help correct nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis.

Pioglitazone has also been found to reduce plaque in carotid and coronary arteries⁵¹; improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and myocardial infarction compared with insulin-sensitizing drugs⁵²; and reduce stroke and myocardial infarction in patients with insulin resistance (but not diabetes) and a recent history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (in the Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke trial).⁵³ It may also help maintain beta-cell function; the Actos Now for the Prevention of Diabetes Study found that pioglitazone reduced the risk of conversion of impaired glucose tolerance to frank diabetes by 72%.⁵⁴

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects seen with this class include weight gain and salt retention, swelling, edema,⁵⁵ and related cardiovascular consequences in certain patients. While this may be mitigatable with lifestyle changes or use in combination with a GLP-1 receptor agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor,⁵⁶ pioglitazone is contraindicated in patients with heart failure, hemodynamic instability, or hepatic dysfunction.

Concerns that pioglitazone might increase the risk of bladder cancer seem to have been put to rest when a study in nearly 200,000 patients found no statistically significant association,⁵⁷ but the warning remains in the US label.

Long-term use of this class of drugs has been associated with an increased risk of bone fractures,⁵⁸ which warrants a risk-benefit assessment in each patient.

Injected insulin: Less safe than thought

Recent research suggests that injected insulin has a less favorable safety profile than previously thought.^15–19,59 Studies of the long-term safety of insulin therapy have had inconsistent results but suggest that injected insulin is associated with poorer cardiovascular and renal outcomes (in some of the same studies that showed metformin or other agents to improve outcomes),^17–19 and the association was dose-dependent. Several studies attempted to cancel out the poorer outcomes by adjusting for hemoglobin A_1c levels, stage of disease,^{17–19,26,27} or severe hypoglycemic episodes.⁶⁰ However, it may be inappropriate to reduce the impact of these variables, as these may themselves be the mediators of any deleterious effects of exogenous insulin.

When exogenous insulin is introduced into the peripheral circulation it causes a state of persistent iatrogenic hyperinsulinemia, which leads to insulin resistance and also appears to compromise the cardiovascular system. In contrast, endogenous insulin is released into the portal system in tightly controlled amounts.^5,61 This suggests that the same insulin peptide may not be equivalently beneficial when introduced in an artificial manner.

Before starting insulin therapy, consider its side effects such as weight gain and hypoglycemia. Most (about 85%) episodes of hypoglycemia occur with basal-bolus insulin regimens.⁶² Moreover, iatrogenic hyperinsulinemia can damage the vascular system.^63,64

We recommend. Insulin therapy is used early in the course of the disease as a short-term intervention for glucolipotoxicity. However, this can be accomplished without attendant risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain by using agents such as SGLT2 inhibitors and incretins. When insulin therapy is necessary, using it as add-on therapy might be considered instead of drug-switching. We have found alternate pharmacologic approaches successful in avoiding or delaying bolus insulin therapy. And in some patients taking insulin, we have had success in progressively introducing a noninsulin agent and were ultimately able to eliminate insulin altogether.

 

 

Bromocriptine-QR

Bromocriptine-QR (quick release)⁶⁵ is a short-acting dopamine agonist that mimics the morning dopamine surge in the suprachiasmatic nucleus—the biologic clock.

Pathways affected. Bromocriptine addresses part of the brain contribution to hyperglycemia, with resultant reductions in both peripheral insulin resistance and sympathetic tone. This reduces muscle, liver, and adipose insulin resistance. It is moderately effective in glucose-lowering, especially in patients with significant insulin resistance.⁶⁶

Advantages, benefits. A 1-year clinical trial reported that bromocriptine reduced cardiovascular adverse outcomes by 39%, and the composite end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 52% compared with placebo.⁶⁷

Disadvantages, adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are nausea, rhinitis, headache, asthenia, dizziness, constipation, and sinusitis.

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (acarbose,⁶⁸ miglitol⁶⁹) work by decreasing the rate of absorption of glucose from the gastrointestinal tract.

Advantages, benefits. These drugs decrease hemoglobin A_1c by 0.5% to 0.8%.70 They are weight-neutral and do not pose a risk of hypoglycemia. Clinical studies suggest that they may delay or prevent diabetes progression. They were also found to reduce cardiovascular events, acute myocardial infarction, and the onset of hypertension.⁶⁹

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Their use remains limited due to gastrointestinal adverse effects. They may be contraindicated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, partial bowel obstruction, or severe renal or hepatic disease.

Pramlintide

Pramlintide⁷¹ is an injectable amylin analogue. It is used as monotherapy or in combination with a sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin glargine.

Pathways affected. Pramlintide decreases appetite, reduces glucagon levels, and minimizes absorption of glucose in the gut.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Common side effects include mild to moderate hypoglycemia and nausea. Nausea may help explain the ability of pramlintide to confer weight loss when used in combination with insulin.

Sulfonylureas and meglitinides

These classes are still widely used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, although the AACE⁶ and ADA⁷² guidelines de-emphasize their use based on associated risks of hypoglycemia, weight gain, morbidity, mortality, and loss of effect over time.

Pathways affected. Sulfonylureas stimulate insulin secretion from beta cells.

Disadvantages, adverse effects. Sulfonylureas and glinides are associated with poorer outcomes than newer agents in clinical trials^{15–19,59,60} and may be generally less beta-cell friendly.⁷³ Their harmful effects are difficult to measure in vivo, but these drugs sometimes appear to be associated with more rapid beta-cell failure and progression to insulin dependence compared with newer ones. Several large-scale registry studies have found sulfonylureas and glinides to be associated with poorer outcomes (reviewed by Herman et al).⁷⁴

Adverse effects include asthenia, headache, dizziness, nausea, diarrhea, epigastric fullness, and heartburn. Although they are often selected based on their low cost, other factors may offset their cost-effectiveness, such as need for glucose monitoring and hospital charges due to sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia. Their utility is also limited by dependence on beta-cell function.

Colesevelam

Colesevelam⁷⁵ is a bile acid sequestrant and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-reducing agent that has been approved for use in diabetes. The mode of action of colesevelam in this capacity is under investigation. Its effect on hemoglobin A_1c is modest. It is associated with gastrointestinal adverse effects, particularly constipation.

Ranolazine

Ranolazine⁷⁶ is an antianginal drug that also lowers glucose by increasing insulin release. It also possesses cardioprotective properties. In patients with diabetes and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, ranolazine reduced hemoglobin A_1c by 1.2% and appeared to be weight-neutral.⁷⁶ Ranolazine is under clinical development for use in diabetes. Adverse effects include dizziness, headache, constipation, and nausea.


Rational combinations of agents

The ideal strategy would use combinations of agents that mechanistically complement one another and address each path of hyperglycemia present in a patient. This approach should supplant the former approaches of adding-on agents only after treatment failure or sequentially trying first-, second-, and third-line treatments.

Examples of synergistic combinations include those that target fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose, reduce reliance on insulin with add-on therapies, or manage hyperglycemia in specific patient groups, such as renal-impaired patients.

Large-scale long-term clinical studies are needed to determine the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of various combinations and whether they confer additive benefits. Some studies have begun to explore possible combinations.

Combined metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide was reported to delay progression of diabetes in early dysglycemia.^77,78 Notably, this combination addresses multiple mediating pathways of hyperglycemia (Table 1).

A GLP-1 receptor agonist with an SGLT2 inhibitor would be another intriguing combination, as the mechanisms of action of these 2 classes complement one another. In limited clinical trials—the DURATION-8 study (lasting 26 weeks),⁷⁹ the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (18 weeks),⁸⁰ and a 24-week study in nondiabetic obese patients⁸¹—additive benefits were also seen in systolic blood pressure, body weight, and cardiac risk factors by adding an SGLT2 inhibitor to a GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with either agent alone. In theory, these improvements might slow or reverse cardiorenal compromise. Lower doses of 1 or more may be possible, and the regimen could prove cost-effective and life-sparing should it slow the progression of the disease and the onset of its complications. A clinical study of this combination is under way (Ralph DeFronzo, personal communication, July 2018). Similarly, the combination of metformin, saxagliptin and dapagliflozin has been shown to be effective.⁸²

CONCLUSION

Care for diabetes mellitus can be particularly challenging for the primary care physician. The progressive nature of diabetes, with worsening hyperglycemia over the course of the disease, further complicates disease management.

Best practices for care nonetheless need to evolve with well-evidenced data, and without years of delay for “trickle-down” education from the specialties to primary care. We have arrived at a juncture to leverage therapies that address the 11 mediating pathways of hyperglycemia, optimally protect beta cells, minimize hypoglycemia, manage risk factors associated with diabetes, and improve diabetes-related outcomes.

Here are 5 articles from the July issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Cloud of inconsistency hangs over cannabis data

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NfjaDS
Expires February 6, 2020

2. Roux-en-Y achieves diabetes remission in majority of patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2x9hLnE
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Socioeconomic status, race found to impact CPAP compliance

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RBpLa9
Expires February 8, 2020

4. Exercise type matters for fall prevention among elderly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X26OUh
Expires February 12, 2020

5. Adult HIV patients should receive standard vaccinations, with caveats

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X1S7LV
Expires February 12, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the July issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Cloud of inconsistency hangs over cannabis data

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NfjaDS
Expires February 6, 2020

2. Roux-en-Y achieves diabetes remission in majority of patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2x9hLnE
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Socioeconomic status, race found to impact CPAP compliance

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RBpLa9
Expires February 8, 2020

4. Exercise type matters for fall prevention among elderly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X26OUh
Expires February 12, 2020

5. Adult HIV patients should receive standard vaccinations, with caveats

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X1S7LV
Expires February 12, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the July issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Cloud of inconsistency hangs over cannabis data

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NfjaDS
Expires February 6, 2020

2. Roux-en-Y achieves diabetes remission in majority of patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2x9hLnE
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Socioeconomic status, race found to impact CPAP compliance

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RBpLa9
Expires February 8, 2020

4. Exercise type matters for fall prevention among elderly

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X26OUh
Expires February 12, 2020

5. Adult HIV patients should receive standard vaccinations, with caveats

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2X1S7LV
Expires February 12, 2020

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning to patients and health care providers that a pair of Medtronic insulin pumps are being recalled because of potential cybersecurity risks, according to a press release.

The affected devices are the MiniMed 508 and MiniMed Paradigm series insulin pumps, which wirelessly connect to both the patient’s blood glucose meter and continuous glucose monitoring system. A remote controller and CareLink USB – a thumb-sized wireless device that plugs into a computer – are used to operate the devices; the remote controller sends insulin dosing commands to the pump and the CareLink USB can be used to download and share data with the patient’s health care provider.

The potential risk involves the wireless communication between the pumps and related devices such as the blood glucose meter and remote controller. The FDA has identified a cybersecurity vulnerability within the insulin pumps, and is concerned that a third party could connect to the device and change the pump’s settings. Insulin could be given in excess, causing hypoglycemia, or stopped, causing hyperglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.

Medtronic has identified 4,000 patients in the United States who are affected by the security weakness. Because the company is unable to adequately update or patch the device to remove the weakness, the FDA is working to ensure that Medtronic addresses the issue in any way possible, including helping patients with affected pumps switch to newer models.

“While we are not aware of patients who may have been harmed by this particular cybersecurity vulnerability, the risk of patient harm if such a vulnerability were left unaddressed is significant. The safety communication issued today contains recommendations for what actions patients and health care providers should take to avoid the risk this vulnerability could pose,” said Suzanne Schwartz, MD, MBA, deputy director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning to patients and health care providers that a pair of Medtronic insulin pumps are being recalled because of potential cybersecurity risks, according to a press release.

The affected devices are the MiniMed 508 and MiniMed Paradigm series insulin pumps, which wirelessly connect to both the patient’s blood glucose meter and continuous glucose monitoring system. A remote controller and CareLink USB – a thumb-sized wireless device that plugs into a computer – are used to operate the devices; the remote controller sends insulin dosing commands to the pump and the CareLink USB can be used to download and share data with the patient’s health care provider.

The potential risk involves the wireless communication between the pumps and related devices such as the blood glucose meter and remote controller. The FDA has identified a cybersecurity vulnerability within the insulin pumps, and is concerned that a third party could connect to the device and change the pump’s settings. Insulin could be given in excess, causing hypoglycemia, or stopped, causing hyperglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.

Medtronic has identified 4,000 patients in the United States who are affected by the security weakness. Because the company is unable to adequately update or patch the device to remove the weakness, the FDA is working to ensure that Medtronic addresses the issue in any way possible, including helping patients with affected pumps switch to newer models.

“While we are not aware of patients who may have been harmed by this particular cybersecurity vulnerability, the risk of patient harm if such a vulnerability were left unaddressed is significant. The safety communication issued today contains recommendations for what actions patients and health care providers should take to avoid the risk this vulnerability could pose,” said Suzanne Schwartz, MD, MBA, deputy director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning to patients and health care providers that a pair of Medtronic insulin pumps are being recalled because of potential cybersecurity risks, according to a press release.

The affected devices are the MiniMed 508 and MiniMed Paradigm series insulin pumps, which wirelessly connect to both the patient’s blood glucose meter and continuous glucose monitoring system. A remote controller and CareLink USB – a thumb-sized wireless device that plugs into a computer – are used to operate the devices; the remote controller sends insulin dosing commands to the pump and the CareLink USB can be used to download and share data with the patient’s health care provider.

The potential risk involves the wireless communication between the pumps and related devices such as the blood glucose meter and remote controller. The FDA has identified a cybersecurity vulnerability within the insulin pumps, and is concerned that a third party could connect to the device and change the pump’s settings. Insulin could be given in excess, causing hypoglycemia, or stopped, causing hyperglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.

Medtronic has identified 4,000 patients in the United States who are affected by the security weakness. Because the company is unable to adequately update or patch the device to remove the weakness, the FDA is working to ensure that Medtronic addresses the issue in any way possible, including helping patients with affected pumps switch to newer models.

“While we are not aware of patients who may have been harmed by this particular cybersecurity vulnerability, the risk of patient harm if such a vulnerability were left unaddressed is significant. The safety communication issued today contains recommendations for what actions patients and health care providers should take to avoid the risk this vulnerability could pose,” said Suzanne Schwartz, MD, MBA, deputy director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships and Technology Innovation.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

SAN FRANCISCO – Powerful drugs now make it possible to lower LDL cholesterol levels to dramatically low levels. But is this a good idea? There are risks, and a cardiologist urged diabetes professionals to not overdo cholesterol reduction. But a colleague argued in favor of aggressively targeting “bad” cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett

“We used to say you can’t be too rich or too thin. We now say you can’t be too rich or too thin or have a too-low LDL cholesterol,” said cardiologist Steven E. Nissen, MD, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, who spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association about the wisdom of extreme LDL cholesterol lowering.

Dr. Nissen faced off in a debate with cardiologist Sanket Dhruva, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who doesn’t support aggressive LDL cholesterol lowering.

It is fine, Dr. Dhruva said, to treat patients so their LDL cholesterol levels drop below 100 mg/dL. “I don’t think there’s any argument there.”

But Dr. Dhruva questioned whether it’s a good idea to generally decrease LDL cholesterol well below 70 mg/dL, as is now possible with the use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors.

SAN FRANCISCO – Powerful drugs now make it possible to lower LDL cholesterol levels to dramatically low levels. But is this a good idea? There are risks, and a cardiologist urged diabetes professionals to not overdo cholesterol reduction. But a colleague argued in favor of aggressively targeting “bad” cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett

“We used to say you can’t be too rich or too thin. We now say you can’t be too rich or too thin or have a too-low LDL cholesterol,” said cardiologist Steven E. Nissen, MD, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, who spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association about the wisdom of extreme LDL cholesterol lowering.

Dr. Nissen faced off in a debate with cardiologist Sanket Dhruva, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who doesn’t support aggressive LDL cholesterol lowering.

It is fine, Dr. Dhruva said, to treat patients so their LDL cholesterol levels drop below 100 mg/dL. “I don’t think there’s any argument there.”

But Dr. Dhruva questioned whether it’s a good idea to generally decrease LDL cholesterol well below 70 mg/dL, as is now possible with the use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors.

SAN FRANCISCO – Powerful drugs now make it possible to lower LDL cholesterol levels to dramatically low levels. But is this a good idea? There are risks, and a cardiologist urged diabetes professionals to not overdo cholesterol reduction. But a colleague argued in favor of aggressively targeting “bad” cholesterol.

Catherine Hackett

“We used to say you can’t be too rich or too thin. We now say you can’t be too rich or too thin or have a too-low LDL cholesterol,” said cardiologist Steven E. Nissen, MD, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, who spoke at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association about the wisdom of extreme LDL cholesterol lowering.

Dr. Nissen faced off in a debate with cardiologist Sanket Dhruva, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, who doesn’t support aggressive LDL cholesterol lowering.

It is fine, Dr. Dhruva said, to treat patients so their LDL cholesterol levels drop below 100 mg/dL. “I don’t think there’s any argument there.”

But Dr. Dhruva questioned whether it’s a good idea to generally decrease LDL cholesterol well below 70 mg/dL, as is now possible with the use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors.