Diabetes

NEW ORLEANS – Patients who have type 2 diabetes and are taking a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor have lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality than patients on other glucose-lowering drugs regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved or reduced, based on data from a large real-world patient registry.

“The observed beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure may extend across the range of baseline ejection fractions,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, observed at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

This is an important new insight. The major randomized cardiovascular outcome trials that showed lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as EMPA-REG OUTCOME for empagliflozin (Jardiance) and CANVAS for canagliflozin (Invokana), didn’t include information on baseline LVEF. So until now it has been unclear whether the beneficial effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors preventing heart failure hospitalization vary depending upon LVEF, explained Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

He presented an analysis drawn from the patient database kept by Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel. The study included 5,307 patients with type 2 diabetes and an LVEF measurement recorded in their chart at the time they started on either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and an equal number of propensity-matched type 2 diabetic controls who started on other glucose-lowering drugs, most commonly an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor.

During roughly 16,000 person-years of follow-up, 239 deaths occurred. Compared with patients on another glucose-lowering drug, the risk of death from all causes was reduced by 47% among patients who were on an SGLT2 inhibitor and had a baseline LVEF of 50% or greater and by 62% among the 9% of subjects who had a baseline LVEF less than 50%.

Similarly, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was reduced by 29% in SGLT2 inhibitor users with a preserved LVEF and by 27% if they had a reduced LVEF.

For the composite endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the risk reductions associated with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy were 45% with preserved and 39% with reduced LVEF.

Session comoderator Prakash C. Deedwania, MD, noted that there are ongoing major randomized trials of various SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with known heart failure, with cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization as primary endpoints. He asked Dr. Kosiborod whether, given that the results of these studies aren’t in yet, he thinks clinicians should be prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to diabetic or prediabetic patients who don’t have clinical symptoms of heart failure but may have a marker of increased risk, such as an elevated B-type natriuretic peptide.

“At least in my mind, we have more than enough evidence at this point to say that SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in preventing heart failure,” Dr. Kosiborod replied.

“Obviously, if your risk for developing a condition is higher at baseline, then the absolute benefit that you’re going to get from using an agent that’s effective in preventing that event is going to be higher and the number needed to treat is going to be lower. So if you have a patient at high risk for heart failure by whatever risk predictor you’re using and the patient doesn’t yet have heart failure but does have diabetes, which is already a risk factor for heart failure, I think we have pretty solid data now that SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be effective in preventing heart failure in that kind of patient population. But I don’t think we have definitive data at this point to say that the drugs are effective in treating heart failure in people who already have a manifest clinical syndrome of heart failure, which is why we’re doing all these clinical trials now,” he continued.

Dr. Deedwania urged audience members to make the effort to become comfortable in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors for their patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Many different surveys show that these drugs are not being utilized effectively by cardiologists,” noted Dr. Deedwania, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the heart failure program at the university’s Fresno campus.

“As cardiologists, we may not want to own diabetes, but we at least have to feel that we have the ownership of treating the diabetic patient with cardiovascular disease with appropriate drugs. We don’t need to depend on endocrinologists because if we do these patients may become lost,” he said.

Dr. Kosiborod concurred, citing evidence that diabetic patients with cardiovascular disease are much more likely to see a cardiologist than an endocrinologist in the course of usual care.

“There’s definitely a golden opportunity here to intervene to reduce risk,” he said.

Dr. Kosiborod reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kosiborod M. ACC 19, Abstract #1024-07.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients who have type 2 diabetes and are taking a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor have lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality than patients on other glucose-lowering drugs regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved or reduced, based on data from a large real-world patient registry.

“The observed beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure may extend across the range of baseline ejection fractions,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, observed at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

This is an important new insight. The major randomized cardiovascular outcome trials that showed lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as EMPA-REG OUTCOME for empagliflozin (Jardiance) and CANVAS for canagliflozin (Invokana), didn’t include information on baseline LVEF. So until now it has been unclear whether the beneficial effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors preventing heart failure hospitalization vary depending upon LVEF, explained Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

He presented an analysis drawn from the patient database kept by Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel. The study included 5,307 patients with type 2 diabetes and an LVEF measurement recorded in their chart at the time they started on either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and an equal number of propensity-matched type 2 diabetic controls who started on other glucose-lowering drugs, most commonly an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor.

During roughly 16,000 person-years of follow-up, 239 deaths occurred. Compared with patients on another glucose-lowering drug, the risk of death from all causes was reduced by 47% among patients who were on an SGLT2 inhibitor and had a baseline LVEF of 50% or greater and by 62% among the 9% of subjects who had a baseline LVEF less than 50%.

Similarly, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was reduced by 29% in SGLT2 inhibitor users with a preserved LVEF and by 27% if they had a reduced LVEF.

For the composite endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the risk reductions associated with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy were 45% with preserved and 39% with reduced LVEF.

Session comoderator Prakash C. Deedwania, MD, noted that there are ongoing major randomized trials of various SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with known heart failure, with cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization as primary endpoints. He asked Dr. Kosiborod whether, given that the results of these studies aren’t in yet, he thinks clinicians should be prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to diabetic or prediabetic patients who don’t have clinical symptoms of heart failure but may have a marker of increased risk, such as an elevated B-type natriuretic peptide.

“At least in my mind, we have more than enough evidence at this point to say that SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in preventing heart failure,” Dr. Kosiborod replied.

“Obviously, if your risk for developing a condition is higher at baseline, then the absolute benefit that you’re going to get from using an agent that’s effective in preventing that event is going to be higher and the number needed to treat is going to be lower. So if you have a patient at high risk for heart failure by whatever risk predictor you’re using and the patient doesn’t yet have heart failure but does have diabetes, which is already a risk factor for heart failure, I think we have pretty solid data now that SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be effective in preventing heart failure in that kind of patient population. But I don’t think we have definitive data at this point to say that the drugs are effective in treating heart failure in people who already have a manifest clinical syndrome of heart failure, which is why we’re doing all these clinical trials now,” he continued.

Dr. Deedwania urged audience members to make the effort to become comfortable in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors for their patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Many different surveys show that these drugs are not being utilized effectively by cardiologists,” noted Dr. Deedwania, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the heart failure program at the university’s Fresno campus.

“As cardiologists, we may not want to own diabetes, but we at least have to feel that we have the ownership of treating the diabetic patient with cardiovascular disease with appropriate drugs. We don’t need to depend on endocrinologists because if we do these patients may become lost,” he said.

Dr. Kosiborod concurred, citing evidence that diabetic patients with cardiovascular disease are much more likely to see a cardiologist than an endocrinologist in the course of usual care.

“There’s definitely a golden opportunity here to intervene to reduce risk,” he said.

Dr. Kosiborod reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kosiborod M. ACC 19, Abstract #1024-07.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients who have type 2 diabetes and are taking a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor have lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality than patients on other glucose-lowering drugs regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved or reduced, based on data from a large real-world patient registry.

“The observed beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure may extend across the range of baseline ejection fractions,” Mikhail Kosiborod, MD, observed at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

This is an important new insight. The major randomized cardiovascular outcome trials that showed lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetic patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor, such as EMPA-REG OUTCOME for empagliflozin (Jardiance) and CANVAS for canagliflozin (Invokana), didn’t include information on baseline LVEF. So until now it has been unclear whether the beneficial effects of the SGLT2 inhibitors preventing heart failure hospitalization vary depending upon LVEF, explained Dr. Kosiborod, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo.

He presented an analysis drawn from the patient database kept by Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel. The study included 5,307 patients with type 2 diabetes and an LVEF measurement recorded in their chart at the time they started on either empagliflozin or dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and an equal number of propensity-matched type 2 diabetic controls who started on other glucose-lowering drugs, most commonly an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor.

During roughly 16,000 person-years of follow-up, 239 deaths occurred. Compared with patients on another glucose-lowering drug, the risk of death from all causes was reduced by 47% among patients who were on an SGLT2 inhibitor and had a baseline LVEF of 50% or greater and by 62% among the 9% of subjects who had a baseline LVEF less than 50%.

Similarly, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was reduced by 29% in SGLT2 inhibitor users with a preserved LVEF and by 27% if they had a reduced LVEF.

For the composite endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the risk reductions associated with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy were 45% with preserved and 39% with reduced LVEF.

Session comoderator Prakash C. Deedwania, MD, noted that there are ongoing major randomized trials of various SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with known heart failure, with cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization as primary endpoints. He asked Dr. Kosiborod whether, given that the results of these studies aren’t in yet, he thinks clinicians should be prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to diabetic or prediabetic patients who don’t have clinical symptoms of heart failure but may have a marker of increased risk, such as an elevated B-type natriuretic peptide.

“At least in my mind, we have more than enough evidence at this point to say that SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in preventing heart failure,” Dr. Kosiborod replied.

“Obviously, if your risk for developing a condition is higher at baseline, then the absolute benefit that you’re going to get from using an agent that’s effective in preventing that event is going to be higher and the number needed to treat is going to be lower. So if you have a patient at high risk for heart failure by whatever risk predictor you’re using and the patient doesn’t yet have heart failure but does have diabetes, which is already a risk factor for heart failure, I think we have pretty solid data now that SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be effective in preventing heart failure in that kind of patient population. But I don’t think we have definitive data at this point to say that the drugs are effective in treating heart failure in people who already have a manifest clinical syndrome of heart failure, which is why we’re doing all these clinical trials now,” he continued.

Dr. Deedwania urged audience members to make the effort to become comfortable in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors for their patients with type 2 diabetes.

“Many different surveys show that these drugs are not being utilized effectively by cardiologists,” noted Dr. Deedwania, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the heart failure program at the university’s Fresno campus.

“As cardiologists, we may not want to own diabetes, but we at least have to feel that we have the ownership of treating the diabetic patient with cardiovascular disease with appropriate drugs. We don’t need to depend on endocrinologists because if we do these patients may become lost,” he said.

Dr. Kosiborod concurred, citing evidence that diabetic patients with cardiovascular disease are much more likely to see a cardiologist than an endocrinologist in the course of usual care.

“There’s definitely a golden opportunity here to intervene to reduce risk,” he said.

Dr. Kosiborod reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kosiborod M. ACC 19, Abstract #1024-07.

LOS ANGELES – Cardiology patients can strap on a Holter monitor for a day or two to track their heart activity and get a brief but helpful glimpse at their cardiac health. Could patients with type 2 diabetes benefit by monitoring their blood sugar for a short period? Absolutely, according to an endocrinologist who says he’s had tremendous success with the temporary use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in appropriate patients.

“There’s an actionable surprise with almost every patient,” said Daniel Einhorn, MD, FACP, FACE, medical director of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute and clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

The key is to use CGM data to pinpoint glucose spikes and then quickly make adjustments, typically over a period of 2 weeks. “This is about pattern recognition. We can do [CGM] over a week, see what the pattern is, and then try to fix something. Then they come back after the second week or send [the monitor] in, and they have the problem fixed. You have a happy patient and a happy family,” said Dr. Einhorn, who spoke in a presentation at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

He highlighted how CGM data allow patients to track their blood sugar over extended periods of time and detect patterns. The data can uncover hidden hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, he said, and is much more useful to patients than the self-monitoring of glucose levels or hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) data.

Reading the patterns, adjusting behavior

Dr. Einhorn discussed several specific cases of patients who had changed their behavior in regard to food or medicine after CGM data disclosed certain blood sugar patterns.

Often, he said, patients say they’re surprised to find their well-being improves after they make adjustments, saying something along the lines of “I didn’t feel badly, but I feel better now.” According to Dr. Einhorn, “You hear that all the time.”

For example, he said, one patient knew his blood sugar occasionally topped 200 mg/dL, but he felt all right and didn’t want to take insulin. CGM monitoring over 6 days showed the patient had continuous glucose levels well over 200 mg/dL, especially at night. The patient accepted insulin, and a few months later his HbA_1c dropped from 10.4% to 6.6%, and his blood sugar level stayed near or below the target range of 154 mg/dL.

Dr. Einhorn said the CGM data can reveal a range of problems, including:

• The “breakfast bump” after carbohydrate-heavy breakfasts of cereal, toast, and juice. “Breakfast cereal is diabolical,” he said.
• Hypoglycemia hours after exercise.
• Nocturnal hypoglycemia.
• Hypoglycemia unawareness.

Insurance coverage of the CGM device varies widely, he said, and insurers may not cover it at all in type 2 diabetes or only pay if the patient takes insulin. Fortunately, he said, the devices can be inexpensive.
 

Temporary use is not for everyone

Dr. Einhorn cautioned that temporary use of CGM is not appropriate for every patient with type 2 diabetes. “There’s absolutely a place for [permanent] monitoring for those people who have to make decisions throughout the day, especially if they are taking insulin,” he said.

And anyone with type 1 diabetes should use CGM on an ongoing basis, he emphasized. “Type 1 is a different world, a different universe,” he said.

He also noted that some patients don’t fare well on CGM, even on a temporary basis. That would include patients who hate to wear devices (possibly out of embarrassment), those who can’t manage to switch over from self-monitoring, and those who can’t manage to understand the data.

Dr. Einhorn disclosed various types of relationships with a number of drug makers, including Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo, Sanofi, Janssen, and others.

LOS ANGELES – Cardiology patients can strap on a Holter monitor for a day or two to track their heart activity and get a brief but helpful glimpse at their cardiac health. Could patients with type 2 diabetes benefit by monitoring their blood sugar for a short period? Absolutely, according to an endocrinologist who says he’s had tremendous success with the temporary use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in appropriate patients.

“There’s an actionable surprise with almost every patient,” said Daniel Einhorn, MD, FACP, FACE, medical director of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute and clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

The key is to use CGM data to pinpoint glucose spikes and then quickly make adjustments, typically over a period of 2 weeks. “This is about pattern recognition. We can do [CGM] over a week, see what the pattern is, and then try to fix something. Then they come back after the second week or send [the monitor] in, and they have the problem fixed. You have a happy patient and a happy family,” said Dr. Einhorn, who spoke in a presentation at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

He highlighted how CGM data allow patients to track their blood sugar over extended periods of time and detect patterns. The data can uncover hidden hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, he said, and is much more useful to patients than the self-monitoring of glucose levels or hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) data.

Reading the patterns, adjusting behavior

Dr. Einhorn discussed several specific cases of patients who had changed their behavior in regard to food or medicine after CGM data disclosed certain blood sugar patterns.

Often, he said, patients say they’re surprised to find their well-being improves after they make adjustments, saying something along the lines of “I didn’t feel badly, but I feel better now.” According to Dr. Einhorn, “You hear that all the time.”

For example, he said, one patient knew his blood sugar occasionally topped 200 mg/dL, but he felt all right and didn’t want to take insulin. CGM monitoring over 6 days showed the patient had continuous glucose levels well over 200 mg/dL, especially at night. The patient accepted insulin, and a few months later his HbA_1c dropped from 10.4% to 6.6%, and his blood sugar level stayed near or below the target range of 154 mg/dL.

Dr. Einhorn said the CGM data can reveal a range of problems, including:

• The “breakfast bump” after carbohydrate-heavy breakfasts of cereal, toast, and juice. “Breakfast cereal is diabolical,” he said.
• Hypoglycemia hours after exercise.
• Nocturnal hypoglycemia.
• Hypoglycemia unawareness.

Insurance coverage of the CGM device varies widely, he said, and insurers may not cover it at all in type 2 diabetes or only pay if the patient takes insulin. Fortunately, he said, the devices can be inexpensive.
 

Temporary use is not for everyone

Dr. Einhorn cautioned that temporary use of CGM is not appropriate for every patient with type 2 diabetes. “There’s absolutely a place for [permanent] monitoring for those people who have to make decisions throughout the day, especially if they are taking insulin,” he said.

And anyone with type 1 diabetes should use CGM on an ongoing basis, he emphasized. “Type 1 is a different world, a different universe,” he said.

He also noted that some patients don’t fare well on CGM, even on a temporary basis. That would include patients who hate to wear devices (possibly out of embarrassment), those who can’t manage to switch over from self-monitoring, and those who can’t manage to understand the data.

Dr. Einhorn disclosed various types of relationships with a number of drug makers, including Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo, Sanofi, Janssen, and others.

LOS ANGELES – Cardiology patients can strap on a Holter monitor for a day or two to track their heart activity and get a brief but helpful glimpse at their cardiac health. Could patients with type 2 diabetes benefit by monitoring their blood sugar for a short period? Absolutely, according to an endocrinologist who says he’s had tremendous success with the temporary use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in appropriate patients.

“There’s an actionable surprise with almost every patient,” said Daniel Einhorn, MD, FACP, FACE, medical director of Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute and clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

The key is to use CGM data to pinpoint glucose spikes and then quickly make adjustments, typically over a period of 2 weeks. “This is about pattern recognition. We can do [CGM] over a week, see what the pattern is, and then try to fix something. Then they come back after the second week or send [the monitor] in, and they have the problem fixed. You have a happy patient and a happy family,” said Dr. Einhorn, who spoke in a presentation at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

He highlighted how CGM data allow patients to track their blood sugar over extended periods of time and detect patterns. The data can uncover hidden hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, he said, and is much more useful to patients than the self-monitoring of glucose levels or hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) data.

Reading the patterns, adjusting behavior

Dr. Einhorn discussed several specific cases of patients who had changed their behavior in regard to food or medicine after CGM data disclosed certain blood sugar patterns.

Often, he said, patients say they’re surprised to find their well-being improves after they make adjustments, saying something along the lines of “I didn’t feel badly, but I feel better now.” According to Dr. Einhorn, “You hear that all the time.”

For example, he said, one patient knew his blood sugar occasionally topped 200 mg/dL, but he felt all right and didn’t want to take insulin. CGM monitoring over 6 days showed the patient had continuous glucose levels well over 200 mg/dL, especially at night. The patient accepted insulin, and a few months later his HbA_1c dropped from 10.4% to 6.6%, and his blood sugar level stayed near or below the target range of 154 mg/dL.

Dr. Einhorn said the CGM data can reveal a range of problems, including:

• The “breakfast bump” after carbohydrate-heavy breakfasts of cereal, toast, and juice. “Breakfast cereal is diabolical,” he said.
• Hypoglycemia hours after exercise.
• Nocturnal hypoglycemia.
• Hypoglycemia unawareness.

Insurance coverage of the CGM device varies widely, he said, and insurers may not cover it at all in type 2 diabetes or only pay if the patient takes insulin. Fortunately, he said, the devices can be inexpensive.
 

Temporary use is not for everyone

Dr. Einhorn cautioned that temporary use of CGM is not appropriate for every patient with type 2 diabetes. “There’s absolutely a place for [permanent] monitoring for those people who have to make decisions throughout the day, especially if they are taking insulin,” he said.

And anyone with type 1 diabetes should use CGM on an ongoing basis, he emphasized. “Type 1 is a different world, a different universe,” he said.

He also noted that some patients don’t fare well on CGM, even on a temporary basis. That would include patients who hate to wear devices (possibly out of embarrassment), those who can’t manage to switch over from self-monitoring, and those who can’t manage to understand the data.

Dr. Einhorn disclosed various types of relationships with a number of drug makers, including Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo, Sanofi, Janssen, and others.

LOS ANGELES – Recommendations on lipid management were among the highlights of this year’s annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), Yehuda Handelsman, MD, and Paul S. Jellinger, MD, said in a video interview at the meeting.

Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, in Tarzana, Calif., summarized the top take-home messages from a premeeting symposium he chaired on diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and lipid management in high-risk patients. Dr. Jellinger, professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, looked at management aspects and therapy goals based on a comparison of the lipid guideline from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association with that from the AACE. Other highlights from the symposium included expert analysis of the CREDENCE trial results on canagliflozin for improving renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, advice on the management of heart failure in diabetes, and recommendations on managing hyperglycemia.

Dr. Jellinger and Dr. Handelsman, who are members of the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News, highlighted the emergence of anabolic treatments for osteoporosis, in particular the sclerostin-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, romosozumab. The therapy was recently approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis and is unique in that it both promotes bone formation and reduces resorption. They also noted the switch away from previous practice to now using an anabolic drug first, then going to an antiresorptive therapy, rather than the other way around.

They discussed the keynote address by social media guru, Kevin Pho, MD; a debate that centered on the merits of the American Diabetes Association’s guideline for treating diabetes versus that from the AACE; a presentation on sustained remission of type 2 diabetes with a very low calorie diet; and a report on encouraging findings with an experimental drug for Graves eye disease.
 

LOS ANGELES – Recommendations on lipid management were among the highlights of this year’s annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), Yehuda Handelsman, MD, and Paul S. Jellinger, MD, said in a video interview at the meeting.

Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, in Tarzana, Calif., summarized the top take-home messages from a premeeting symposium he chaired on diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and lipid management in high-risk patients. Dr. Jellinger, professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, looked at management aspects and therapy goals based on a comparison of the lipid guideline from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association with that from the AACE. Other highlights from the symposium included expert analysis of the CREDENCE trial results on canagliflozin for improving renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, advice on the management of heart failure in diabetes, and recommendations on managing hyperglycemia.

Dr. Jellinger and Dr. Handelsman, who are members of the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News, highlighted the emergence of anabolic treatments for osteoporosis, in particular the sclerostin-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, romosozumab. The therapy was recently approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis and is unique in that it both promotes bone formation and reduces resorption. They also noted the switch away from previous practice to now using an anabolic drug first, then going to an antiresorptive therapy, rather than the other way around.

They discussed the keynote address by social media guru, Kevin Pho, MD; a debate that centered on the merits of the American Diabetes Association’s guideline for treating diabetes versus that from the AACE; a presentation on sustained remission of type 2 diabetes with a very low calorie diet; and a report on encouraging findings with an experimental drug for Graves eye disease.
 

LOS ANGELES – Recommendations on lipid management were among the highlights of this year’s annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), Yehuda Handelsman, MD, and Paul S. Jellinger, MD, said in a video interview at the meeting.

Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, in Tarzana, Calif., summarized the top take-home messages from a premeeting symposium he chaired on diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and lipid management in high-risk patients. Dr. Jellinger, professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, looked at management aspects and therapy goals based on a comparison of the lipid guideline from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association with that from the AACE. Other highlights from the symposium included expert analysis of the CREDENCE trial results on canagliflozin for improving renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes, advice on the management of heart failure in diabetes, and recommendations on managing hyperglycemia.

Dr. Jellinger and Dr. Handelsman, who are members of the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News, highlighted the emergence of anabolic treatments for osteoporosis, in particular the sclerostin-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, romosozumab. The therapy was recently approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis and is unique in that it both promotes bone formation and reduces resorption. They also noted the switch away from previous practice to now using an anabolic drug first, then going to an antiresorptive therapy, rather than the other way around.

They discussed the keynote address by social media guru, Kevin Pho, MD; a debate that centered on the merits of the American Diabetes Association’s guideline for treating diabetes versus that from the AACE; a presentation on sustained remission of type 2 diabetes with a very low calorie diet; and a report on encouraging findings with an experimental drug for Graves eye disease.
 

A recent letter, “Hypoglycemia in the elderly: Watch for atypical symptoms” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:116) provided an incomplete list of the letter’s authors. The list should have read: Jan Brož, MD, Jana Urbanová, MD, PhD, Prague, Czech Republic; Brian M. Frier, MD, BSc, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

A recent letter, “Hypoglycemia in the elderly: Watch for atypical symptoms” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:116) provided an incomplete list of the letter’s authors. The list should have read: Jan Brož, MD, Jana Urbanová, MD, PhD, Prague, Czech Republic; Brian M. Frier, MD, BSc, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

A recent letter, “Hypoglycemia in the elderly: Watch for atypical symptoms” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:116) provided an incomplete list of the letter’s authors. The list should have read: Jan Brož, MD, Jana Urbanová, MD, PhD, Prague, Czech Republic; Brian M. Frier, MD, BSc, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Qternmet XR (dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin) as an oral adjunct therapy to diet and exercise for the improvement of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to AstraZeneca.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

FDA approval is based on results from a pair of phase 3 trials that tested different combinations of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who were also receiving metformin over a 24-week period. In both trials, treatment with dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin decreased hemoglobin A_1c by statistically significant amounts, and increased the number of patients with HbA_1c levels below 7%

The safety results of Qternmet XR was consistent with each component medication’s known profile.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Qternmet XR (dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin) as an oral adjunct therapy to diet and exercise for the improvement of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to AstraZeneca.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

FDA approval is based on results from a pair of phase 3 trials that tested different combinations of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who were also receiving metformin over a 24-week period. In both trials, treatment with dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin decreased hemoglobin A_1c by statistically significant amounts, and increased the number of patients with HbA_1c levels below 7%

The safety results of Qternmet XR was consistent with each component medication’s known profile.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Qternmet XR (dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin) as an oral adjunct therapy to diet and exercise for the improvement of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to AstraZeneca.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

FDA approval is based on results from a pair of phase 3 trials that tested different combinations of dapagliflozin and saxagliptin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes who were also receiving metformin over a 24-week period. In both trials, treatment with dapagliflozin/saxagliptin/metformin decreased hemoglobin A_1c by statistically significant amounts, and increased the number of patients with HbA_1c levels below 7%

The safety results of Qternmet XR was consistent with each component medication’s known profile.

[email protected]

The number of reported cases of Fourier gangrene in patients receiving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has surged since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a 2018 warning about this rare but serious infection, researchers say.

Health care providers prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with diabetes should have a high index of suspicion for the signs and symptoms of Fournier gangrene, given its substantial morbidity and mortality, according to Susan J. Bersoff-Matcha, MD, and her colleagues at the FDA.

“Although the risk for [Fournier gangrene] is low, serious infection should be considered and weighed against the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy,” said Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors in their recent report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (2019 May 6. doi: 10.7326/M19-0085).

In the previous warning, FDA officials said 12 cases of Fournier gangrene in patients taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had been reported to the agency or in medical literature from March 2013, when the first such inhibitor was approved, and May 2018.

In this latest report, a total of 55 Fournier gangrene cases had been reported in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors from March 2, 2013 through January 31, 2019.

The influx of reports may have been prompted by growing awareness of the safety issue, investigators said, but could also reflect the increasing prevalence of diabetes combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use. The researchers also noted that diabetes is a comorbidity in 32% to 66% of cases of Fournier gangrene.

But the likliehood that diabetes mellitus alone causes Fournier gangrene seems unlikley, given that Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors only found 19 Fournier gangrene cases associated with other classes of antiglycemic agents reported to the FDA or in the literature over a 35-year time frame.

“If Fournier gangrene were associated only with diabetes mellitus and not SGLT2 inhibitors, we would expect far more cases reported with the other antiglycemic agents, considering the 35-year timeframe and the large number of agents,” they said in their report.

Cases were reported for all FDA-approved SGLT2 inhibitors besides ertugliflozin, an agent approved for use in the U.S. in December 2017. The lack of cases reported for this drug could be related to its limited time on the market, the investigators said.

Fournier gangrene, marked by rapidly progressing necrotizing infection of the genitalia, perineum, and perianal region, requires antibiotics and immediate surgery, according to Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and colleagues.

“Serious complications and death are likely if Fournier gangrene is not recognized immediately and surgical intervention is not carried out within the first few hours of diagnosis,” they said in the report.

Of the 55 cases reported in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors, 39 were men and 16 were women, with an average of 9 months from the start of treatment to the event, investigators said.

At least 25 patients required multiple surgeries, including one patient who had 17 trips to the operating room, they said. A total of 8 patients had a fecal diversion procedure, and 4 patients had skin grafting.

Six patients had multiple encounters with a provider before being diagnosed, suggesting that the provider may have not recognized the infection due to its nonspecific symptoms, which include fatigue, fever, and malaise.

“Pain that seems out of proportion to findings on physical examination is a strong clinical indicator of necrotizing fasciitis and may be the most important diagnostic clue,” Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors said in their report.

The incidence of Fournier gangrene in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors can’t be established by these cases reported to the FDA, which are spontaneously provided by health care providers and patients, investigators said.

“We suspect that our numbers underestimate the true burden,” they said in their report.

Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their report.

SOURCE: Bersoff-Matcha SJ, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 May 6. Doi: doi:10.7326/M19-0085.

This article was updated May 9, 2019.

The number of reported cases of Fourier gangrene in patients receiving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has surged since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a 2018 warning about this rare but serious infection, researchers say.

Health care providers prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with diabetes should have a high index of suspicion for the signs and symptoms of Fournier gangrene, given its substantial morbidity and mortality, according to Susan J. Bersoff-Matcha, MD, and her colleagues at the FDA.

“Although the risk for [Fournier gangrene] is low, serious infection should be considered and weighed against the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy,” said Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors in their recent report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (2019 May 6. doi: 10.7326/M19-0085).

In the previous warning, FDA officials said 12 cases of Fournier gangrene in patients taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had been reported to the agency or in medical literature from March 2013, when the first such inhibitor was approved, and May 2018.

In this latest report, a total of 55 Fournier gangrene cases had been reported in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors from March 2, 2013 through January 31, 2019.

The influx of reports may have been prompted by growing awareness of the safety issue, investigators said, but could also reflect the increasing prevalence of diabetes combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use. The researchers also noted that diabetes is a comorbidity in 32% to 66% of cases of Fournier gangrene.

But the likliehood that diabetes mellitus alone causes Fournier gangrene seems unlikley, given that Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors only found 19 Fournier gangrene cases associated with other classes of antiglycemic agents reported to the FDA or in the literature over a 35-year time frame.

“If Fournier gangrene were associated only with diabetes mellitus and not SGLT2 inhibitors, we would expect far more cases reported with the other antiglycemic agents, considering the 35-year timeframe and the large number of agents,” they said in their report.

Cases were reported for all FDA-approved SGLT2 inhibitors besides ertugliflozin, an agent approved for use in the U.S. in December 2017. The lack of cases reported for this drug could be related to its limited time on the market, the investigators said.

Fournier gangrene, marked by rapidly progressing necrotizing infection of the genitalia, perineum, and perianal region, requires antibiotics and immediate surgery, according to Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and colleagues.

“Serious complications and death are likely if Fournier gangrene is not recognized immediately and surgical intervention is not carried out within the first few hours of diagnosis,” they said in the report.

Of the 55 cases reported in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors, 39 were men and 16 were women, with an average of 9 months from the start of treatment to the event, investigators said.

At least 25 patients required multiple surgeries, including one patient who had 17 trips to the operating room, they said. A total of 8 patients had a fecal diversion procedure, and 4 patients had skin grafting.

Six patients had multiple encounters with a provider before being diagnosed, suggesting that the provider may have not recognized the infection due to its nonspecific symptoms, which include fatigue, fever, and malaise.

“Pain that seems out of proportion to findings on physical examination is a strong clinical indicator of necrotizing fasciitis and may be the most important diagnostic clue,” Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors said in their report.

The incidence of Fournier gangrene in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors can’t be established by these cases reported to the FDA, which are spontaneously provided by health care providers and patients, investigators said.

“We suspect that our numbers underestimate the true burden,” they said in their report.

Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their report.

SOURCE: Bersoff-Matcha SJ, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 May 6. Doi: doi:10.7326/M19-0085.

This article was updated May 9, 2019.

The number of reported cases of Fourier gangrene in patients receiving sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has surged since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a 2018 warning about this rare but serious infection, researchers say.

Health care providers prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors to patients with diabetes should have a high index of suspicion for the signs and symptoms of Fournier gangrene, given its substantial morbidity and mortality, according to Susan J. Bersoff-Matcha, MD, and her colleagues at the FDA.

“Although the risk for [Fournier gangrene] is low, serious infection should be considered and weighed against the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy,” said Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors in their recent report published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (2019 May 6. doi: 10.7326/M19-0085).

In the previous warning, FDA officials said 12 cases of Fournier gangrene in patients taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had been reported to the agency or in medical literature from March 2013, when the first such inhibitor was approved, and May 2018.

In this latest report, a total of 55 Fournier gangrene cases had been reported in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors from March 2, 2013 through January 31, 2019.

The influx of reports may have been prompted by growing awareness of the safety issue, investigators said, but could also reflect the increasing prevalence of diabetes combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use. The researchers also noted that diabetes is a comorbidity in 32% to 66% of cases of Fournier gangrene.

But the likliehood that diabetes mellitus alone causes Fournier gangrene seems unlikley, given that Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors only found 19 Fournier gangrene cases associated with other classes of antiglycemic agents reported to the FDA or in the literature over a 35-year time frame.

“If Fournier gangrene were associated only with diabetes mellitus and not SGLT2 inhibitors, we would expect far more cases reported with the other antiglycemic agents, considering the 35-year timeframe and the large number of agents,” they said in their report.

Cases were reported for all FDA-approved SGLT2 inhibitors besides ertugliflozin, an agent approved for use in the U.S. in December 2017. The lack of cases reported for this drug could be related to its limited time on the market, the investigators said.

Fournier gangrene, marked by rapidly progressing necrotizing infection of the genitalia, perineum, and perianal region, requires antibiotics and immediate surgery, according to Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and colleagues.

“Serious complications and death are likely if Fournier gangrene is not recognized immediately and surgical intervention is not carried out within the first few hours of diagnosis,” they said in the report.

Of the 55 cases reported in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors, 39 were men and 16 were women, with an average of 9 months from the start of treatment to the event, investigators said.

At least 25 patients required multiple surgeries, including one patient who had 17 trips to the operating room, they said. A total of 8 patients had a fecal diversion procedure, and 4 patients had skin grafting.

Six patients had multiple encounters with a provider before being diagnosed, suggesting that the provider may have not recognized the infection due to its nonspecific symptoms, which include fatigue, fever, and malaise.

“Pain that seems out of proportion to findings on physical examination is a strong clinical indicator of necrotizing fasciitis and may be the most important diagnostic clue,” Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors said in their report.

The incidence of Fournier gangrene in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors can’t be established by these cases reported to the FDA, which are spontaneously provided by health care providers and patients, investigators said.

“We suspect that our numbers underestimate the true burden,” they said in their report.

Dr. Bersoff-Matcha and co-authors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their report.

SOURCE: Bersoff-Matcha SJ, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 May 6. Doi: doi:10.7326/M19-0085.

This article was updated May 9, 2019.

LOS ANGELES – There are plenty of options available if you’re looking to use medication to help your patient with diabetes lose weight, including existing diabetes drugs. Newer medications are much more powerful, but they come with cautions – insurer coverage can be a hurdle, and there are significant gaps in knowledge about their risks for patients with heart disease, Ken Fujioka, MD, told colleagues at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Fujioka, of Scripps Clinic in San Diego, shared some tips with his peers about using medications to reduce weight.

Diabetes drugs help, but may need a boost

Metformin can reduce weight by as much as 3%, Dr. Fujioka said. And there may be another benefit related to long-term weight loss maintenance, he said, citing a 15-year study of overweight or obese patients at high risk for diabetes who either received metformin, underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, or took a placebo. Of the participants with weight loss of at least 5% after the first year, those originally assigned to receive metformin had the greatest weight loss during years 6-15. Older age, the amount of weight initially lost, and continued used of metformin were predictors of long-term weight loss maintenance, according to the researchers (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 23. doi: 10.7326/M18-1605).

There are other options among diabetes drugs. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – a class of drugs that includes canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have a striking effect on weight loss, Dr. Fujioka said. They can cause 300 calories to be flushed out in the urine each day. But that typically doesn’t translate into weight loss of more than 20 pounds, he said, because the body doesn’t fully adjust to fewer calories.

“The patients begin to eat more,” he said. “They have to take in more calories to make up for [the loss]. They’re not consciously trying to do this. It’s a metabolic adaptation, so 2%-3% [weight loss] is about all you’ll get. You won’t get 10% or 20%.”

To drive up weight loss, Dr. Fujioka recommended adding the glucagonlike peptide–1 [GLP1] receptor diabetes drug exenatide (Byetta; Bydureon) or the appetite suppressant phentermine (Adipex-p; Lomaira) to an SGLT2 inhibitor. Recent studies have shown that the drug combinations have a greater impact on weight loss than when taken separately (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Dec;4[12]:1004-16; Diabetes Care. 2017 May;40[5]:632-9).

In regard to phentermine, which acts similarly to amphetamine, Dr. Fujioka advised colleagues to be aware that “15 mg or less is really safe, but you drive pulse and heart rate beyond that.”

Consider insurance coverage and other factors

Often, insurers will pay for GLP1-receptor and SGLT2-inhibitor medications in patients with diabetes, even if their hemoglobin A_1c is in the healthy range, Dr. Fujioka said, but they’ll balk at paying for specific weight-loss medications, although that can vary by the region of the country. He added that cash discount cards are available for several weight-loss drugs.

Newer weight-loss drugs ...

Dr. Fujioka highlighted a quartet of weight-loss drugs that have been approved in recent years.

• Lorcaserin (Belviq), a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist, has shown unique benefits in patients with diabetes. A large, multinational, randomized controlled trial found that the drug reduced the risk for incident diabetes, induced remission of hyperglycemia, and reduced the risk of microvascular complications in obese and overweight patients (Lancet. 2018 Nov 24;392[10161]:2269-79).
• Phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia), a combination of an antiseizure medication (topiramate) and an appetite suppressant (phentermine). A 2014 study found that the drug, together with lifestyle modification, effectively promoted weight loss and improved glycemic control in obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2014 Dec;37[12]:3309-16).
• Naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), a combination of an addiction drug (naltrexone) and an antidepressant (bupropion). Findings from a 2013 study reported that the drug “in overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes induced weight loss... was associated with improvements in glycemic control and select cardiovascular risk factors and was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that in patients without diabetes.” (Diabetes Care. 2013 Dec;36[12]:4022-9).
• Liraglutide, an injectable GLP1 agonist that has been approved for diabetes (Victoza) and weight loss (Saxenda). Dr. Fujioka was coauthor for a study in which the findings suggested that the drug could prevent prediabetes from turning into diabetes. (Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389[10077]:1399-409).

... but watch out for safety in patients with heart disease

Two of the newer weight-loss drugs are OK to prescribe for diabetic patients with heart disease, Dr. Fujioka said, but two are not, because no cardiac safety trials have been completed for them.

Liraglutide (at a dose of 3.0 mg) is considered safe based on previous data (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Mar;20[3]:734-9), Dr. Fujioka said. Likewise, findings from a trial with lorcaserin in which 12,000 overweight or obese patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors received either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or placebo, suggested that lorcaserin helped sustain weight loss without a higher rate of major cardiovascular events compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 20;379[12]:1107-17).However, no such cardiac safety trials have been completed for naltrexone/bupropion or phentermine/topiramate, said Dr. Fujioka. As a result, he said he could not recommend either of them for patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Fujioka disclosed relationships of various types with Novo Nordisk, Eisai, Gelesis, KVK Tech, Amgen, Sunovion, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen Global Services.
 

LOS ANGELES – There are plenty of options available if you’re looking to use medication to help your patient with diabetes lose weight, including existing diabetes drugs. Newer medications are much more powerful, but they come with cautions – insurer coverage can be a hurdle, and there are significant gaps in knowledge about their risks for patients with heart disease, Ken Fujioka, MD, told colleagues at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Fujioka, of Scripps Clinic in San Diego, shared some tips with his peers about using medications to reduce weight.

Diabetes drugs help, but may need a boost

Metformin can reduce weight by as much as 3%, Dr. Fujioka said. And there may be another benefit related to long-term weight loss maintenance, he said, citing a 15-year study of overweight or obese patients at high risk for diabetes who either received metformin, underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, or took a placebo. Of the participants with weight loss of at least 5% after the first year, those originally assigned to receive metformin had the greatest weight loss during years 6-15. Older age, the amount of weight initially lost, and continued used of metformin were predictors of long-term weight loss maintenance, according to the researchers (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 23. doi: 10.7326/M18-1605).

There are other options among diabetes drugs. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – a class of drugs that includes canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have a striking effect on weight loss, Dr. Fujioka said. They can cause 300 calories to be flushed out in the urine each day. But that typically doesn’t translate into weight loss of more than 20 pounds, he said, because the body doesn’t fully adjust to fewer calories.

“The patients begin to eat more,” he said. “They have to take in more calories to make up for [the loss]. They’re not consciously trying to do this. It’s a metabolic adaptation, so 2%-3% [weight loss] is about all you’ll get. You won’t get 10% or 20%.”

To drive up weight loss, Dr. Fujioka recommended adding the glucagonlike peptide–1 [GLP1] receptor diabetes drug exenatide (Byetta; Bydureon) or the appetite suppressant phentermine (Adipex-p; Lomaira) to an SGLT2 inhibitor. Recent studies have shown that the drug combinations have a greater impact on weight loss than when taken separately (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Dec;4[12]:1004-16; Diabetes Care. 2017 May;40[5]:632-9).

In regard to phentermine, which acts similarly to amphetamine, Dr. Fujioka advised colleagues to be aware that “15 mg or less is really safe, but you drive pulse and heart rate beyond that.”

Consider insurance coverage and other factors

Often, insurers will pay for GLP1-receptor and SGLT2-inhibitor medications in patients with diabetes, even if their hemoglobin A_1c is in the healthy range, Dr. Fujioka said, but they’ll balk at paying for specific weight-loss medications, although that can vary by the region of the country. He added that cash discount cards are available for several weight-loss drugs.

Newer weight-loss drugs ...

Dr. Fujioka highlighted a quartet of weight-loss drugs that have been approved in recent years.

• Lorcaserin (Belviq), a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist, has shown unique benefits in patients with diabetes. A large, multinational, randomized controlled trial found that the drug reduced the risk for incident diabetes, induced remission of hyperglycemia, and reduced the risk of microvascular complications in obese and overweight patients (Lancet. 2018 Nov 24;392[10161]:2269-79).
• Phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia), a combination of an antiseizure medication (topiramate) and an appetite suppressant (phentermine). A 2014 study found that the drug, together with lifestyle modification, effectively promoted weight loss and improved glycemic control in obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2014 Dec;37[12]:3309-16).
• Naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), a combination of an addiction drug (naltrexone) and an antidepressant (bupropion). Findings from a 2013 study reported that the drug “in overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes induced weight loss... was associated with improvements in glycemic control and select cardiovascular risk factors and was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that in patients without diabetes.” (Diabetes Care. 2013 Dec;36[12]:4022-9).
• Liraglutide, an injectable GLP1 agonist that has been approved for diabetes (Victoza) and weight loss (Saxenda). Dr. Fujioka was coauthor for a study in which the findings suggested that the drug could prevent prediabetes from turning into diabetes. (Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389[10077]:1399-409).

... but watch out for safety in patients with heart disease

Two of the newer weight-loss drugs are OK to prescribe for diabetic patients with heart disease, Dr. Fujioka said, but two are not, because no cardiac safety trials have been completed for them.

Liraglutide (at a dose of 3.0 mg) is considered safe based on previous data (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Mar;20[3]:734-9), Dr. Fujioka said. Likewise, findings from a trial with lorcaserin in which 12,000 overweight or obese patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors received either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or placebo, suggested that lorcaserin helped sustain weight loss without a higher rate of major cardiovascular events compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 20;379[12]:1107-17).However, no such cardiac safety trials have been completed for naltrexone/bupropion or phentermine/topiramate, said Dr. Fujioka. As a result, he said he could not recommend either of them for patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Fujioka disclosed relationships of various types with Novo Nordisk, Eisai, Gelesis, KVK Tech, Amgen, Sunovion, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen Global Services.
 

LOS ANGELES – There are plenty of options available if you’re looking to use medication to help your patient with diabetes lose weight, including existing diabetes drugs. Newer medications are much more powerful, but they come with cautions – insurer coverage can be a hurdle, and there are significant gaps in knowledge about their risks for patients with heart disease, Ken Fujioka, MD, told colleagues at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Fujioka, of Scripps Clinic in San Diego, shared some tips with his peers about using medications to reduce weight.

Diabetes drugs help, but may need a boost

Metformin can reduce weight by as much as 3%, Dr. Fujioka said. And there may be another benefit related to long-term weight loss maintenance, he said, citing a 15-year study of overweight or obese patients at high risk for diabetes who either received metformin, underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, or took a placebo. Of the participants with weight loss of at least 5% after the first year, those originally assigned to receive metformin had the greatest weight loss during years 6-15. Older age, the amount of weight initially lost, and continued used of metformin were predictors of long-term weight loss maintenance, according to the researchers (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 23. doi: 10.7326/M18-1605).

There are other options among diabetes drugs. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – a class of drugs that includes canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – have a striking effect on weight loss, Dr. Fujioka said. They can cause 300 calories to be flushed out in the urine each day. But that typically doesn’t translate into weight loss of more than 20 pounds, he said, because the body doesn’t fully adjust to fewer calories.

“The patients begin to eat more,” he said. “They have to take in more calories to make up for [the loss]. They’re not consciously trying to do this. It’s a metabolic adaptation, so 2%-3% [weight loss] is about all you’ll get. You won’t get 10% or 20%.”

To drive up weight loss, Dr. Fujioka recommended adding the glucagonlike peptide–1 [GLP1] receptor diabetes drug exenatide (Byetta; Bydureon) or the appetite suppressant phentermine (Adipex-p; Lomaira) to an SGLT2 inhibitor. Recent studies have shown that the drug combinations have a greater impact on weight loss than when taken separately (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Dec;4[12]:1004-16; Diabetes Care. 2017 May;40[5]:632-9).

In regard to phentermine, which acts similarly to amphetamine, Dr. Fujioka advised colleagues to be aware that “15 mg or less is really safe, but you drive pulse and heart rate beyond that.”

Consider insurance coverage and other factors

Often, insurers will pay for GLP1-receptor and SGLT2-inhibitor medications in patients with diabetes, even if their hemoglobin A_1c is in the healthy range, Dr. Fujioka said, but they’ll balk at paying for specific weight-loss medications, although that can vary by the region of the country. He added that cash discount cards are available for several weight-loss drugs.

Newer weight-loss drugs ...

Dr. Fujioka highlighted a quartet of weight-loss drugs that have been approved in recent years.

• Lorcaserin (Belviq), a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist, has shown unique benefits in patients with diabetes. A large, multinational, randomized controlled trial found that the drug reduced the risk for incident diabetes, induced remission of hyperglycemia, and reduced the risk of microvascular complications in obese and overweight patients (Lancet. 2018 Nov 24;392[10161]:2269-79).
• Phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia), a combination of an antiseizure medication (topiramate) and an appetite suppressant (phentermine). A 2014 study found that the drug, together with lifestyle modification, effectively promoted weight loss and improved glycemic control in obese or overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2014 Dec;37[12]:3309-16).
• Naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), a combination of an addiction drug (naltrexone) and an antidepressant (bupropion). Findings from a 2013 study reported that the drug “in overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes induced weight loss... was associated with improvements in glycemic control and select cardiovascular risk factors and was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that in patients without diabetes.” (Diabetes Care. 2013 Dec;36[12]:4022-9).
• Liraglutide, an injectable GLP1 agonist that has been approved for diabetes (Victoza) and weight loss (Saxenda). Dr. Fujioka was coauthor for a study in which the findings suggested that the drug could prevent prediabetes from turning into diabetes. (Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389[10077]:1399-409).

... but watch out for safety in patients with heart disease

Two of the newer weight-loss drugs are OK to prescribe for diabetic patients with heart disease, Dr. Fujioka said, but two are not, because no cardiac safety trials have been completed for them.

Liraglutide (at a dose of 3.0 mg) is considered safe based on previous data (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Mar;20[3]:734-9), Dr. Fujioka said. Likewise, findings from a trial with lorcaserin in which 12,000 overweight or obese patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors received either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or placebo, suggested that lorcaserin helped sustain weight loss without a higher rate of major cardiovascular events compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 20;379[12]:1107-17).However, no such cardiac safety trials have been completed for naltrexone/bupropion or phentermine/topiramate, said Dr. Fujioka. As a result, he said he could not recommend either of them for patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease.

Dr. Fujioka disclosed relationships of various types with Novo Nordisk, Eisai, Gelesis, KVK Tech, Amgen, Sunovion, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen Global Services.
 

LOS ANGELES – The venerable insulin pump is being repurposed: A Detroit-area endocrinology team reports successfully using insulin pumps to deliver hydrocortisone to patients with adrenal insufficiency who have fared poorly on oral medications.

“We’ve seen amazing results,” said endocrinologist Opada Alzohaili, MD, MBA, of Wayne State University, Detroit, coauthor of a study released at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Alzohaili said he and his colleagues developed the approach to manage patients who are “so sick that they go to the hospital 10-12 times a year.” Oral medication just did not control their disorder.

“Most of the time, we end up way overdosing them [on oral medication] just to prevent them from going to the hospital in adrenal crisis,” he said in an interview.

LOS ANGELES – The venerable insulin pump is being repurposed: A Detroit-area endocrinology team reports successfully using insulin pumps to deliver hydrocortisone to patients with adrenal insufficiency who have fared poorly on oral medications.

“We’ve seen amazing results,” said endocrinologist Opada Alzohaili, MD, MBA, of Wayne State University, Detroit, coauthor of a study released at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Alzohaili said he and his colleagues developed the approach to manage patients who are “so sick that they go to the hospital 10-12 times a year.” Oral medication just did not control their disorder.

“Most of the time, we end up way overdosing them [on oral medication] just to prevent them from going to the hospital in adrenal crisis,” he said in an interview.

LOS ANGELES – The venerable insulin pump is being repurposed: A Detroit-area endocrinology team reports successfully using insulin pumps to deliver hydrocortisone to patients with adrenal insufficiency who have fared poorly on oral medications.

“We’ve seen amazing results,” said endocrinologist Opada Alzohaili, MD, MBA, of Wayne State University, Detroit, coauthor of a study released at the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Alzohaili said he and his colleagues developed the approach to manage patients who are “so sick that they go to the hospital 10-12 times a year.” Oral medication just did not control their disorder.

“Most of the time, we end up way overdosing them [on oral medication] just to prevent them from going to the hospital in adrenal crisis,” he said in an interview.

The addition of liraglutide to metformin shows significantly improved glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, compared with metformin alone, according to data presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting in Baltimore.

The phase 3 study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 134 patients aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes who were managing their diabetes with diet and exercise, metformin, or insulin.

Participants were randomized either to subcutaneous liraglutide – dose-escalated up to 1.8 mg/day, depending on efficacy and side effects – or placebo for 52 weeks. The first 26 weeks were double blind and the second 26 weeks were an open-label extension period.

At 26 weeks, mean glycated hemoglobin levels in the liraglutide group had decreased by 0.64 percentage points from baseline, but in the placebo group they had increased by 0.42 percentage points, representing a treatment difference of –1.06 percentage points (P less than .001). By week 52, the treatment difference between the two groups had increased to –1.30 percentage points.

William V. Tamborlane, MD, from the department of pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his coauthors wrote that metformin is the approved drug of choice for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes, and that insulin currently is the only approved option for those who do not have an adequate response to metformin monotherapy.

“This discrepancy in available treatments for youth as compared with adults persists because of a lack of successfully completed trials needed for approval of new drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children since a trial of metformin was completed in 1999,” they wrote.

The study showed that significantly more patients in the liraglutide group (63.7%) achieved glycated hemoglobin levels below 7%, compared with 36.5% of patients in the placebo group. Fasting plasma glucose levels were decreased in the liraglutide group at both 26 and 52 weeks, but had increased in the placebo group.

Although the number of reported adverse events were similar between the two groups, there were significantly more reports of gastrointestinal adverse events – particularly nausea – in patients taking liraglutide, compared with those on placebo.

However, the study did not show a difference between liraglutide and placebo in lowering body mass index, although mean body weight decreases – which were seen in both groups – were maintained at week 52 only in the liraglutide group. The authors suggested this might be owing to the relatively small number of patients enrolled in the study and that some of the children were still growing.

Novo Nordisk, which manufactures liraglutide, supported the study. Twelve authors reported grants or support from Novo Nordisk in relation to the trial. Three authors were employees of Novo Nordisk. Eight authors reported unrelated grants and fees from Novo Nordisk and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Tamborlane WV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903822.

The addition of liraglutide to metformin shows significantly improved glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, compared with metformin alone, according to data presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting in Baltimore.

The phase 3 study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 134 patients aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes who were managing their diabetes with diet and exercise, metformin, or insulin.

Participants were randomized either to subcutaneous liraglutide – dose-escalated up to 1.8 mg/day, depending on efficacy and side effects – or placebo for 52 weeks. The first 26 weeks were double blind and the second 26 weeks were an open-label extension period.

At 26 weeks, mean glycated hemoglobin levels in the liraglutide group had decreased by 0.64 percentage points from baseline, but in the placebo group they had increased by 0.42 percentage points, representing a treatment difference of –1.06 percentage points (P less than .001). By week 52, the treatment difference between the two groups had increased to –1.30 percentage points.

William V. Tamborlane, MD, from the department of pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his coauthors wrote that metformin is the approved drug of choice for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes, and that insulin currently is the only approved option for those who do not have an adequate response to metformin monotherapy.

“This discrepancy in available treatments for youth as compared with adults persists because of a lack of successfully completed trials needed for approval of new drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children since a trial of metformin was completed in 1999,” they wrote.

The study showed that significantly more patients in the liraglutide group (63.7%) achieved glycated hemoglobin levels below 7%, compared with 36.5% of patients in the placebo group. Fasting plasma glucose levels were decreased in the liraglutide group at both 26 and 52 weeks, but had increased in the placebo group.

Although the number of reported adverse events were similar between the two groups, there were significantly more reports of gastrointestinal adverse events – particularly nausea – in patients taking liraglutide, compared with those on placebo.

However, the study did not show a difference between liraglutide and placebo in lowering body mass index, although mean body weight decreases – which were seen in both groups – were maintained at week 52 only in the liraglutide group. The authors suggested this might be owing to the relatively small number of patients enrolled in the study and that some of the children were still growing.

Novo Nordisk, which manufactures liraglutide, supported the study. Twelve authors reported grants or support from Novo Nordisk in relation to the trial. Three authors were employees of Novo Nordisk. Eight authors reported unrelated grants and fees from Novo Nordisk and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Tamborlane WV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903822.

The addition of liraglutide to metformin shows significantly improved glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes, compared with metformin alone, according to data presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting in Baltimore.

The phase 3 study, which was simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 134 patients aged 10-17 years with type 2 diabetes who were managing their diabetes with diet and exercise, metformin, or insulin.

Participants were randomized either to subcutaneous liraglutide – dose-escalated up to 1.8 mg/day, depending on efficacy and side effects – or placebo for 52 weeks. The first 26 weeks were double blind and the second 26 weeks were an open-label extension period.

At 26 weeks, mean glycated hemoglobin levels in the liraglutide group had decreased by 0.64 percentage points from baseline, but in the placebo group they had increased by 0.42 percentage points, representing a treatment difference of –1.06 percentage points (P less than .001). By week 52, the treatment difference between the two groups had increased to –1.30 percentage points.

William V. Tamborlane, MD, from the department of pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and his coauthors wrote that metformin is the approved drug of choice for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes, and that insulin currently is the only approved option for those who do not have an adequate response to metformin monotherapy.

“This discrepancy in available treatments for youth as compared with adults persists because of a lack of successfully completed trials needed for approval of new drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in children since a trial of metformin was completed in 1999,” they wrote.

The study showed that significantly more patients in the liraglutide group (63.7%) achieved glycated hemoglobin levels below 7%, compared with 36.5% of patients in the placebo group. Fasting plasma glucose levels were decreased in the liraglutide group at both 26 and 52 weeks, but had increased in the placebo group.

Although the number of reported adverse events were similar between the two groups, there were significantly more reports of gastrointestinal adverse events – particularly nausea – in patients taking liraglutide, compared with those on placebo.

However, the study did not show a difference between liraglutide and placebo in lowering body mass index, although mean body weight decreases – which were seen in both groups – were maintained at week 52 only in the liraglutide group. The authors suggested this might be owing to the relatively small number of patients enrolled in the study and that some of the children were still growing.

Novo Nordisk, which manufactures liraglutide, supported the study. Twelve authors reported grants or support from Novo Nordisk in relation to the trial. Three authors were employees of Novo Nordisk. Eight authors reported unrelated grants and fees from Novo Nordisk and other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Tamborlane WV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903822.

LOS ANGELES – Longer duration of type 2 diabetes and any use of medication for the disease are risk factors for short-term bone fracture, results from a large community-based study have shown.

“Osteoporotic fractures are a significant public health burden, causing high morbidity, mortality, and associated health care costs,” Elizabeth J. Samelson, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. “Risk of fractures are higher in patients with type 2 diabetes. Further, outcomes are worse in type 2 diabetes patients, with greater frequency of complications following a fracture.”

Given the projected increase in type 2 diabetes in the U.S. population, Dr. Samelson, an associate scientist at the Marcus Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues set out to evaluate the short- and long-term risks of bone fractures associated with the disease. They drew from 2,105 women and 1,130 men who participated in the Framingham Original and Offspring Cohorts and whose baseline osteoporosis visit was around 1990. Type 2 diabetes was defined as having a fasting plasma glucose of greater than 125 mg/dL or being on treatment for the disease. Incident fractures excluded finger, toe, skull, face, and pathologic fractures, and the researchers used repeated measures analyses to estimate hazard ratios for the association between type 2 diabetes, type 2 diabetes medication use, and type 2 diabetes duration and incident fracture, adjusted for age, sex, height, and weight.

The mean age of the study participants was 67 years, and the mean follow-up was 9 years. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in women and men was 7% and 13%, respectively, and 63% and 51% of those were on medication for the disease. The mean duration of diabetes was 8 years.

Dr. Samelson and colleagues found that the cumulative incidence of fracture was 37% in women with type 2 diabetes and 30% in those without the disease. Meanwhile, the cumulative incidence of fracture was 11% in men with type 2 diabetes and 16% in those without the disease. The researchers also found that type 2 diabetes was associated with 1-year fracture risk in women (hazard ratio, 2.23), but not in men.

In the entire study population, longer duration of type 2 diabetes increased the 2-year fracture risk (HR, 1.28), as did the use of any type 2 diabetes medication (HR, 1.70). The researchers observed no statistically significant differences between type 2 diabetes and long-term incidence of fracture.

“Previous studies have contributed to understanding the higher incidence of fractures and worse outcomes in type 2 diabetes, [but] the current study demonstrated that patients [with type 2 diabetes] have 50% to 100% higher short-term [1- to 2-year] risk of fracture independent of clinical risk factors, whereas long-term [10-year] risk of fracture was similar in [patients with] type 2 diabetes and those who do not have [the disease],” Dr. Samelson said. “The current study has some inherent limitations of observational studies, including a lack of definitive determination of causality and that the results are not generalizable to patients with similar demographics. The study, however, is robust in the availability of detailed clinical information, which allows for control of multiple confounding variables.”

Dr. Samelson reported having no financial disclosures. Coauthors Setareh Williams, PhD, and Rich Weiss, MD, are employees and shareholders of Radius Health Inc.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Longer duration of type 2 diabetes and any use of medication for the disease are risk factors for short-term bone fracture, results from a large community-based study have shown.

“Osteoporotic fractures are a significant public health burden, causing high morbidity, mortality, and associated health care costs,” Elizabeth J. Samelson, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. “Risk of fractures are higher in patients with type 2 diabetes. Further, outcomes are worse in type 2 diabetes patients, with greater frequency of complications following a fracture.”

Given the projected increase in type 2 diabetes in the U.S. population, Dr. Samelson, an associate scientist at the Marcus Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues set out to evaluate the short- and long-term risks of bone fractures associated with the disease. They drew from 2,105 women and 1,130 men who participated in the Framingham Original and Offspring Cohorts and whose baseline osteoporosis visit was around 1990. Type 2 diabetes was defined as having a fasting plasma glucose of greater than 125 mg/dL or being on treatment for the disease. Incident fractures excluded finger, toe, skull, face, and pathologic fractures, and the researchers used repeated measures analyses to estimate hazard ratios for the association between type 2 diabetes, type 2 diabetes medication use, and type 2 diabetes duration and incident fracture, adjusted for age, sex, height, and weight.

The mean age of the study participants was 67 years, and the mean follow-up was 9 years. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in women and men was 7% and 13%, respectively, and 63% and 51% of those were on medication for the disease. The mean duration of diabetes was 8 years.

Dr. Samelson and colleagues found that the cumulative incidence of fracture was 37% in women with type 2 diabetes and 30% in those without the disease. Meanwhile, the cumulative incidence of fracture was 11% in men with type 2 diabetes and 16% in those without the disease. The researchers also found that type 2 diabetes was associated with 1-year fracture risk in women (hazard ratio, 2.23), but not in men.

In the entire study population, longer duration of type 2 diabetes increased the 2-year fracture risk (HR, 1.28), as did the use of any type 2 diabetes medication (HR, 1.70). The researchers observed no statistically significant differences between type 2 diabetes and long-term incidence of fracture.

“Previous studies have contributed to understanding the higher incidence of fractures and worse outcomes in type 2 diabetes, [but] the current study demonstrated that patients [with type 2 diabetes] have 50% to 100% higher short-term [1- to 2-year] risk of fracture independent of clinical risk factors, whereas long-term [10-year] risk of fracture was similar in [patients with] type 2 diabetes and those who do not have [the disease],” Dr. Samelson said. “The current study has some inherent limitations of observational studies, including a lack of definitive determination of causality and that the results are not generalizable to patients with similar demographics. The study, however, is robust in the availability of detailed clinical information, which allows for control of multiple confounding variables.”

Dr. Samelson reported having no financial disclosures. Coauthors Setareh Williams, PhD, and Rich Weiss, MD, are employees and shareholders of Radius Health Inc.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Longer duration of type 2 diabetes and any use of medication for the disease are risk factors for short-term bone fracture, results from a large community-based study have shown.

“Osteoporotic fractures are a significant public health burden, causing high morbidity, mortality, and associated health care costs,” Elizabeth J. Samelson, PhD, said in an interview in advance of the annual scientific and clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. “Risk of fractures are higher in patients with type 2 diabetes. Further, outcomes are worse in type 2 diabetes patients, with greater frequency of complications following a fracture.”

Given the projected increase in type 2 diabetes in the U.S. population, Dr. Samelson, an associate scientist at the Marcus Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues set out to evaluate the short- and long-term risks of bone fractures associated with the disease. They drew from 2,105 women and 1,130 men who participated in the Framingham Original and Offspring Cohorts and whose baseline osteoporosis visit was around 1990. Type 2 diabetes was defined as having a fasting plasma glucose of greater than 125 mg/dL or being on treatment for the disease. Incident fractures excluded finger, toe, skull, face, and pathologic fractures, and the researchers used repeated measures analyses to estimate hazard ratios for the association between type 2 diabetes, type 2 diabetes medication use, and type 2 diabetes duration and incident fracture, adjusted for age, sex, height, and weight.

The mean age of the study participants was 67 years, and the mean follow-up was 9 years. The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in women and men was 7% and 13%, respectively, and 63% and 51% of those were on medication for the disease. The mean duration of diabetes was 8 years.

Dr. Samelson and colleagues found that the cumulative incidence of fracture was 37% in women with type 2 diabetes and 30% in those without the disease. Meanwhile, the cumulative incidence of fracture was 11% in men with type 2 diabetes and 16% in those without the disease. The researchers also found that type 2 diabetes was associated with 1-year fracture risk in women (hazard ratio, 2.23), but not in men.

In the entire study population, longer duration of type 2 diabetes increased the 2-year fracture risk (HR, 1.28), as did the use of any type 2 diabetes medication (HR, 1.70). The researchers observed no statistically significant differences between type 2 diabetes and long-term incidence of fracture.

“Previous studies have contributed to understanding the higher incidence of fractures and worse outcomes in type 2 diabetes, [but] the current study demonstrated that patients [with type 2 diabetes] have 50% to 100% higher short-term [1- to 2-year] risk of fracture independent of clinical risk factors, whereas long-term [10-year] risk of fracture was similar in [patients with] type 2 diabetes and those who do not have [the disease],” Dr. Samelson said. “The current study has some inherent limitations of observational studies, including a lack of definitive determination of causality and that the results are not generalizable to patients with similar demographics. The study, however, is robust in the availability of detailed clinical information, which allows for control of multiple confounding variables.”

Dr. Samelson reported having no financial disclosures. Coauthors Setareh Williams, PhD, and Rich Weiss, MD, are employees and shareholders of Radius Health Inc.

[email protected]