Diabetes

Insulin may be toxic to the placenta during early pregnancy, causing DNA damage, decreased cell survival, and apoptosis, but the toxic effects appear to be prevented with metformin, according to findings from an experimental in vitro study published in Fertility and Sterility.

iStock/ThinkStock

“Collectively these results demonstrate that insulin itself may be directly toxic to the early human placenta but that metformin can prevent these deleterious effects,” wrote Mario Vega, MD, of Columbia University Fertility Center, New York, and his colleagues. “If confirmed in animal and human studies, this would indicate that screening and treatment for insulin resistance should focus on hyperinsulinemia.”

Dr. Vega and his colleagues cultivated trophoblast cells from three healthy women scheduled for manual vacuum aspiration during the first trimester of pregnancy to study the effects of insulin exposure alone, while trophoblast cells were cultured from a different set of women for the insulin and metformin follow-up experiments. The researchers tested each experiment against a control group of cultivated lung fibroblast cells. Insulin was measured in doses of 0.2 nmol, 1 nmol, and 5 nmol, while metformin was measured at 10 micromol. The primary outcome measures examined were gamma-H2AX for DNA damage, cell proliferation assay for cell survival, and cleaved caspase-3 for apoptosis.

Within 48 hours, the cultures showed DNA damage and induction of apoptosis when exposed to 1 nmol of insulin, but researchers said pretreatment with metformin prevented these effects. Exposing cells to metformin after insulin reduced but did not eliminate the effects of insulin.

The researchers noted the study is limited because the effects of insulin and metformin have not been examined in vivo, and it is not known at what level insulin causes damage. In addition, they suggested downregulation of genes in trophoblasts caused by insulin could cause apoptosis and DNA damage to trophoblast cells.

“Although studies performed on kidney and colon cells suggest that one possible mechanism of action for insulin-mediated genotoxicity is through AKT activation of mitochondria and subsequent reactive oxygen species production, the exact mechanism is poorly understood,” Dr. Vega and colleagues said. “Future studies will be necessary to determine variability among subjects, as well as mechanisms of action through which insulin exerts its cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Human Placenta Project. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Vega M et al. Fertil Steril. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.032.

Insulin may be toxic to the placenta during early pregnancy, causing DNA damage, decreased cell survival, and apoptosis, but the toxic effects appear to be prevented with metformin, according to findings from an experimental in vitro study published in Fertility and Sterility.

iStock/ThinkStock

“Collectively these results demonstrate that insulin itself may be directly toxic to the early human placenta but that metformin can prevent these deleterious effects,” wrote Mario Vega, MD, of Columbia University Fertility Center, New York, and his colleagues. “If confirmed in animal and human studies, this would indicate that screening and treatment for insulin resistance should focus on hyperinsulinemia.”

Dr. Vega and his colleagues cultivated trophoblast cells from three healthy women scheduled for manual vacuum aspiration during the first trimester of pregnancy to study the effects of insulin exposure alone, while trophoblast cells were cultured from a different set of women for the insulin and metformin follow-up experiments. The researchers tested each experiment against a control group of cultivated lung fibroblast cells. Insulin was measured in doses of 0.2 nmol, 1 nmol, and 5 nmol, while metformin was measured at 10 micromol. The primary outcome measures examined were gamma-H2AX for DNA damage, cell proliferation assay for cell survival, and cleaved caspase-3 for apoptosis.

Within 48 hours, the cultures showed DNA damage and induction of apoptosis when exposed to 1 nmol of insulin, but researchers said pretreatment with metformin prevented these effects. Exposing cells to metformin after insulin reduced but did not eliminate the effects of insulin.

The researchers noted the study is limited because the effects of insulin and metformin have not been examined in vivo, and it is not known at what level insulin causes damage. In addition, they suggested downregulation of genes in trophoblasts caused by insulin could cause apoptosis and DNA damage to trophoblast cells.

“Although studies performed on kidney and colon cells suggest that one possible mechanism of action for insulin-mediated genotoxicity is through AKT activation of mitochondria and subsequent reactive oxygen species production, the exact mechanism is poorly understood,” Dr. Vega and colleagues said. “Future studies will be necessary to determine variability among subjects, as well as mechanisms of action through which insulin exerts its cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Human Placenta Project. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Vega M et al. Fertil Steril. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.032.

Insulin may be toxic to the placenta during early pregnancy, causing DNA damage, decreased cell survival, and apoptosis, but the toxic effects appear to be prevented with metformin, according to findings from an experimental in vitro study published in Fertility and Sterility.

iStock/ThinkStock

“Collectively these results demonstrate that insulin itself may be directly toxic to the early human placenta but that metformin can prevent these deleterious effects,” wrote Mario Vega, MD, of Columbia University Fertility Center, New York, and his colleagues. “If confirmed in animal and human studies, this would indicate that screening and treatment for insulin resistance should focus on hyperinsulinemia.”

Dr. Vega and his colleagues cultivated trophoblast cells from three healthy women scheduled for manual vacuum aspiration during the first trimester of pregnancy to study the effects of insulin exposure alone, while trophoblast cells were cultured from a different set of women for the insulin and metformin follow-up experiments. The researchers tested each experiment against a control group of cultivated lung fibroblast cells. Insulin was measured in doses of 0.2 nmol, 1 nmol, and 5 nmol, while metformin was measured at 10 micromol. The primary outcome measures examined were gamma-H2AX for DNA damage, cell proliferation assay for cell survival, and cleaved caspase-3 for apoptosis.

Within 48 hours, the cultures showed DNA damage and induction of apoptosis when exposed to 1 nmol of insulin, but researchers said pretreatment with metformin prevented these effects. Exposing cells to metformin after insulin reduced but did not eliminate the effects of insulin.

The researchers noted the study is limited because the effects of insulin and metformin have not been examined in vivo, and it is not known at what level insulin causes damage. In addition, they suggested downregulation of genes in trophoblasts caused by insulin could cause apoptosis and DNA damage to trophoblast cells.

“Although studies performed on kidney and colon cells suggest that one possible mechanism of action for insulin-mediated genotoxicity is through AKT activation of mitochondria and subsequent reactive oxygen species production, the exact mechanism is poorly understood,” Dr. Vega and colleagues said. “Future studies will be necessary to determine variability among subjects, as well as mechanisms of action through which insulin exerts its cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Human Placenta Project. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Vega M et al. Fertil Steril. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.032.

Sanofi hasn’t given up on its SGLT1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Zynquista) for type 1 diabetes mellitus despite a recent 8-to-8 split decision on recommendation for approval from the Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.

In the company’s three trials, involving about 3,000 insulin-dependent adults treated for up to a year, the drug lowered hemoglobin A_1c a respectable 0.5% without increasing hypoglycemia risk; reduced glucose variability; and increased time in range, with some modest benefits in both weight loss and lower blood pressure. There was no sign of the increased amputation risk that has bedeviled the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), already on the market for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The fly in the ointment was diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA); the drug increased the risk eightfold versus placebo, and, although there were no DKA deaths and over 60% of patients resumed sotagliflozin after recovering, the cases were serious and sometimes occurred in patients with glucose levels as low as 150 mg/dL. Younger people and women seemed to be at higher risk, according to the data.

DKA risk was 4 cases per 100 patients/year, a 4% risk, and that was in the ideal setting of a trial, not everyday practice. The annual background risk of DKA is 1% or less in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

“It’s got to be safer than this,” said committee chair Peter Wilson, MD, professor of cardiology and public health at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson voted to recommend approval but with the major caveat that Sanofi have a strong risk mitigation program in place, perhaps based on ketone monitoring to catch emerging DKA before people end up in the ED. That was a universal request among others who voted for recommendation; among those who voted against, the concern in large part was that, even with such a program, the risk of DKA was still too high.

“If they had already developed a mitigation program that had been piloted, and they showed us some data, there would have been more enthusiasm, but we didn’t have that,” he said in an interview after the hearing.

Sanofi did suggest possible risk mitigation strategies during the meeting. In a statement afterwards, spokesman Nicolas Kressmann said, “While we acknowledge the increase in incidence of DKA observed with the addition of sotagliflozin to insulin, we believe that the risks may be mitigated and managed with proper patient selection and education regarding appropriate ketone monitoring. We will continue to work with the FDA to ensure the agency has the data it needs to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sotagliflozin when used as an oral treatment together with insulin by adults with T1DM. We are confident in the data of our T1DM clinical program.”

Meanwhile, the company’s development for T2DMs is ongoing, with results from a number of trials expected later in 2019. Sotagliflozin would join canagliflozin and two other SGLT2 inhibitors already on the market for T2DM, none of which have been approved for T1DM disease. The approved drugs work by increasing renal glucose excretion.

A significant proportion of DKA cases in sotagliflozin’s T1DM trials were preceded by infections and other well-known triggers, “but there were a proportion of patients where they couldn’t identify the cause; it just kind of came out of the blue. Something about the medication lowers the threshold,” said panelist and endocrinologist Cecilia Low Wang, MD, director of the glucose management team at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, who voted against recommending approval.

“There’s definitely an increased risk” with other SGLT2 inhibitors, as well, when used off label for T1DM. “No one really knows why,” she said.

Dr. Wilson was also concerned that insulin wasn’t more tightly titrated in the placebo groups, which might have led to the 0.5% improvement seen with sotagliflozin, but “they wanted to have trials that were likely to be beneficial, so it’s reasonable to do what they did,” he said.

Overall, “we don’t really have many options for type 1, and many of us were sympathetic to the idea of increasing options.” In T1DM, “you can lose your concentration” on insulin dosing for a couple hours, “and the next thing you know you are going too high or too low and going off the road. These pills help smooth out your ups and downs. I would like to think [sotagliflozin] might be approved for a restricted group, for which we’ve really sorted out the ketone data,” he said.

Dr. Wilson and Dr. Low Wang did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Sanofi hasn’t given up on its SGLT1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Zynquista) for type 1 diabetes mellitus despite a recent 8-to-8 split decision on recommendation for approval from the Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.

In the company’s three trials, involving about 3,000 insulin-dependent adults treated for up to a year, the drug lowered hemoglobin A_1c a respectable 0.5% without increasing hypoglycemia risk; reduced glucose variability; and increased time in range, with some modest benefits in both weight loss and lower blood pressure. There was no sign of the increased amputation risk that has bedeviled the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), already on the market for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The fly in the ointment was diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA); the drug increased the risk eightfold versus placebo, and, although there were no DKA deaths and over 60% of patients resumed sotagliflozin after recovering, the cases were serious and sometimes occurred in patients with glucose levels as low as 150 mg/dL. Younger people and women seemed to be at higher risk, according to the data.

DKA risk was 4 cases per 100 patients/year, a 4% risk, and that was in the ideal setting of a trial, not everyday practice. The annual background risk of DKA is 1% or less in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

“It’s got to be safer than this,” said committee chair Peter Wilson, MD, professor of cardiology and public health at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson voted to recommend approval but with the major caveat that Sanofi have a strong risk mitigation program in place, perhaps based on ketone monitoring to catch emerging DKA before people end up in the ED. That was a universal request among others who voted for recommendation; among those who voted against, the concern in large part was that, even with such a program, the risk of DKA was still too high.

“If they had already developed a mitigation program that had been piloted, and they showed us some data, there would have been more enthusiasm, but we didn’t have that,” he said in an interview after the hearing.

Sanofi did suggest possible risk mitigation strategies during the meeting. In a statement afterwards, spokesman Nicolas Kressmann said, “While we acknowledge the increase in incidence of DKA observed with the addition of sotagliflozin to insulin, we believe that the risks may be mitigated and managed with proper patient selection and education regarding appropriate ketone monitoring. We will continue to work with the FDA to ensure the agency has the data it needs to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sotagliflozin when used as an oral treatment together with insulin by adults with T1DM. We are confident in the data of our T1DM clinical program.”

Meanwhile, the company’s development for T2DMs is ongoing, with results from a number of trials expected later in 2019. Sotagliflozin would join canagliflozin and two other SGLT2 inhibitors already on the market for T2DM, none of which have been approved for T1DM disease. The approved drugs work by increasing renal glucose excretion.

A significant proportion of DKA cases in sotagliflozin’s T1DM trials were preceded by infections and other well-known triggers, “but there were a proportion of patients where they couldn’t identify the cause; it just kind of came out of the blue. Something about the medication lowers the threshold,” said panelist and endocrinologist Cecilia Low Wang, MD, director of the glucose management team at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, who voted against recommending approval.

“There’s definitely an increased risk” with other SGLT2 inhibitors, as well, when used off label for T1DM. “No one really knows why,” she said.

Dr. Wilson was also concerned that insulin wasn’t more tightly titrated in the placebo groups, which might have led to the 0.5% improvement seen with sotagliflozin, but “they wanted to have trials that were likely to be beneficial, so it’s reasonable to do what they did,” he said.

Overall, “we don’t really have many options for type 1, and many of us were sympathetic to the idea of increasing options.” In T1DM, “you can lose your concentration” on insulin dosing for a couple hours, “and the next thing you know you are going too high or too low and going off the road. These pills help smooth out your ups and downs. I would like to think [sotagliflozin] might be approved for a restricted group, for which we’ve really sorted out the ketone data,” he said.

Dr. Wilson and Dr. Low Wang did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Sanofi hasn’t given up on its SGLT1/2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Zynquista) for type 1 diabetes mellitus despite a recent 8-to-8 split decision on recommendation for approval from the Food and Drug Administration’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.

In the company’s three trials, involving about 3,000 insulin-dependent adults treated for up to a year, the drug lowered hemoglobin A_1c a respectable 0.5% without increasing hypoglycemia risk; reduced glucose variability; and increased time in range, with some modest benefits in both weight loss and lower blood pressure. There was no sign of the increased amputation risk that has bedeviled the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), already on the market for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The fly in the ointment was diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA); the drug increased the risk eightfold versus placebo, and, although there were no DKA deaths and over 60% of patients resumed sotagliflozin after recovering, the cases were serious and sometimes occurred in patients with glucose levels as low as 150 mg/dL. Younger people and women seemed to be at higher risk, according to the data.

DKA risk was 4 cases per 100 patients/year, a 4% risk, and that was in the ideal setting of a trial, not everyday practice. The annual background risk of DKA is 1% or less in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

“It’s got to be safer than this,” said committee chair Peter Wilson, MD, professor of cardiology and public health at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Wilson voted to recommend approval but with the major caveat that Sanofi have a strong risk mitigation program in place, perhaps based on ketone monitoring to catch emerging DKA before people end up in the ED. That was a universal request among others who voted for recommendation; among those who voted against, the concern in large part was that, even with such a program, the risk of DKA was still too high.

“If they had already developed a mitigation program that had been piloted, and they showed us some data, there would have been more enthusiasm, but we didn’t have that,” he said in an interview after the hearing.

Sanofi did suggest possible risk mitigation strategies during the meeting. In a statement afterwards, spokesman Nicolas Kressmann said, “While we acknowledge the increase in incidence of DKA observed with the addition of sotagliflozin to insulin, we believe that the risks may be mitigated and managed with proper patient selection and education regarding appropriate ketone monitoring. We will continue to work with the FDA to ensure the agency has the data it needs to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sotagliflozin when used as an oral treatment together with insulin by adults with T1DM. We are confident in the data of our T1DM clinical program.”

Meanwhile, the company’s development for T2DMs is ongoing, with results from a number of trials expected later in 2019. Sotagliflozin would join canagliflozin and two other SGLT2 inhibitors already on the market for T2DM, none of which have been approved for T1DM disease. The approved drugs work by increasing renal glucose excretion.

A significant proportion of DKA cases in sotagliflozin’s T1DM trials were preceded by infections and other well-known triggers, “but there were a proportion of patients where they couldn’t identify the cause; it just kind of came out of the blue. Something about the medication lowers the threshold,” said panelist and endocrinologist Cecilia Low Wang, MD, director of the glucose management team at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, who voted against recommending approval.

“There’s definitely an increased risk” with other SGLT2 inhibitors, as well, when used off label for T1DM. “No one really knows why,” she said.

Dr. Wilson was also concerned that insulin wasn’t more tightly titrated in the placebo groups, which might have led to the 0.5% improvement seen with sotagliflozin, but “they wanted to have trials that were likely to be beneficial, so it’s reasonable to do what they did,” he said.

Overall, “we don’t really have many options for type 1, and many of us were sympathetic to the idea of increasing options.” In T1DM, “you can lose your concentration” on insulin dosing for a couple hours, “and the next thing you know you are going too high or too low and going off the road. These pills help smooth out your ups and downs. I would like to think [sotagliflozin] might be approved for a restricted group, for which we’ve really sorted out the ketone data,” he said.

Dr. Wilson and Dr. Low Wang did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of drugs form the basis for the development of drugs used in everyday clinical practice, such as commonly used insulin products. PK measures the concentration of a drug in the body, and reflects the rates and amounts absorbed and processed. PD is the biologic effect of a drug in the body, including the time-course of when the biologic effect starts, peaks, and ends. While the determination of PK/PD parameters is important and foundational for the development of different insulin products, studies are often complex and can be difficult to translate into real-world clinical practice. In this roundtable, the speakers discuss PK/PD concepts, focusing on the differentiation of basal insulin analogs and their use in individualized diabetes therapy.

First, the speakers discuss the euglycemic glucose clamp methodology—the standard technique for evaluating PK/PD of insulin—including how it is performed, what parameters it measures (and how they can be interpreted), and its limitations.

Next, the speakers discuss how PK/PD impacts drug development, with particular focus on PK/PD studies used in the development of the second-generation basal insulin analogs insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec.

Finally, the speakers discuss how PK/PD data translate into clinical practice, including the relationship between PK/PD and drug efficacy and safety, and how it influences dosing strategies, hypoglycemia risk, and patient education. Further, the speakers discuss how the PK/PD profile of basal insulins can inform primary care providers when selecting appropriate individualized therapy for patients.

Financial support provided by Sanofi US, Inc.

Click here to watch the videos

Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of drugs form the basis for the development of drugs used in everyday clinical practice, such as commonly used insulin products. PK measures the concentration of a drug in the body, and reflects the rates and amounts absorbed and processed. PD is the biologic effect of a drug in the body, including the time-course of when the biologic effect starts, peaks, and ends. While the determination of PK/PD parameters is important and foundational for the development of different insulin products, studies are often complex and can be difficult to translate into real-world clinical practice. In this roundtable, the speakers discuss PK/PD concepts, focusing on the differentiation of basal insulin analogs and their use in individualized diabetes therapy.

First, the speakers discuss the euglycemic glucose clamp methodology—the standard technique for evaluating PK/PD of insulin—including how it is performed, what parameters it measures (and how they can be interpreted), and its limitations.

Next, the speakers discuss how PK/PD impacts drug development, with particular focus on PK/PD studies used in the development of the second-generation basal insulin analogs insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec.

Finally, the speakers discuss how PK/PD data translate into clinical practice, including the relationship between PK/PD and drug efficacy and safety, and how it influences dosing strategies, hypoglycemia risk, and patient education. Further, the speakers discuss how the PK/PD profile of basal insulins can inform primary care providers when selecting appropriate individualized therapy for patients.

Financial support provided by Sanofi US, Inc.

Click here to watch the videos

Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties of drugs form the basis for the development of drugs used in everyday clinical practice, such as commonly used insulin products. PK measures the concentration of a drug in the body, and reflects the rates and amounts absorbed and processed. PD is the biologic effect of a drug in the body, including the time-course of when the biologic effect starts, peaks, and ends. While the determination of PK/PD parameters is important and foundational for the development of different insulin products, studies are often complex and can be difficult to translate into real-world clinical practice. In this roundtable, the speakers discuss PK/PD concepts, focusing on the differentiation of basal insulin analogs and their use in individualized diabetes therapy.

First, the speakers discuss the euglycemic glucose clamp methodology—the standard technique for evaluating PK/PD of insulin—including how it is performed, what parameters it measures (and how they can be interpreted), and its limitations.

Next, the speakers discuss how PK/PD impacts drug development, with particular focus on PK/PD studies used in the development of the second-generation basal insulin analogs insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and insulin degludec.

Finally, the speakers discuss how PK/PD data translate into clinical practice, including the relationship between PK/PD and drug efficacy and safety, and how it influences dosing strategies, hypoglycemia risk, and patient education. Further, the speakers discuss how the PK/PD profile of basal insulins can inform primary care providers when selecting appropriate individualized therapy for patients.

Financial support provided by Sanofi US, Inc.

Click here to watch the videos

LOS ANGELES – Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events in chronic and acute cardiovascular disease states in patients on maximally tolerated statins, according to the best available data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, there does not seem to be a floor of achieved LDL-C levels where cardiovascular outcomes are not decreased.

Those are two key lessons from recent trials of PCSK9 inhibitors that Norman E. Lepor, MD, highlighted at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. Anti-PCSK9 antibodies have shown a significant lipid-lowering effect, lowering LDL-C by 45%-55% from baseline regardless of whether patients are on statins or ezetimibe. More than 70% of high-risk patients are able to achieve an LDL-C level less than 70 mg/dL.

In two randomized trials known as SPIRE-1 and SPIRE-2, researchers compared the PCSK9 inhibitor bococizumab with placebo (N Engl J Med 2017;376:1527-39). The main difference between these two trials was the baseline cardiovascular risk was higher in SPIRE-2, particularly the baseline LDL levels. “Both trials were stopped early because of the increased incidence of antibodies against bococizumab as well as adverse events associated with that, particularly injection site reactions,” said Dr. Lepor, a cardiologist who is professor of medicine at the Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

SPIRE-1 did not show a significant difference within a short time of that trial, but SPIRE-2 showed a profound reduction in cardiovascular events within a short time. “That led to the conclusion that the higher the LDL, the higher risk you are, the more likely that you’re going to attain a more robust reduction of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Lepor said. Bococizumab, a partially humanized antibody, did not come to market because of the high incidence of anti-drug antibody and associated diminution of therapeutic effect, he added.

Next came the FOURIER trial of evolocumab, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg/dL or higher who were receiving statin therapy. Study participants received evolocumab (either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) or matching placebo as subcutaneous injections (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1713-22). “The reduction in LDL was very robust and occurred quite early, and there was consistency in terms of long-term effect,” said Dr. Lepor, a past president of the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology. Specifically, researchers observed a 15% reduction in the primary endpoints of a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization (P less than .001), and a 20% reduction in the key secondary endpoints of a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke.

“It’s important to note that these are patients who were already well treated on statins,” he said. “There really does not seem to be a floor of LDL levels where we can say there is no further benefit. Achieved LDL-C at 4 weeks did lead to the ability to prognosticate benefit. We’re not seeing an increase in situations like diabetes, neurocognitive effects, and myalgias. The incidence of adverse events are similar to placebo. We feel very good that there do not seem to be safety issues for these agents, particularly in a population of patients with very low LDLs.” Dr. Lepor went on to note that FOURIER substudies have shown that there did not seem to be any increased incidence of neurocognitive disorders in patients taking evolocumab and that diabetes “tends to be a disease amplifier.”

In a more recent trial known as ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, 18,536 acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients were randomized to alirocumab 75 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2097-107). The dose of alirocumab was increased to 150 mg every 2 weeks if the LDL was not lowered to less than 50 mg/dL. “The trial had other interesting aspects to it,” Dr. Lepor said. “If you had an LDL during the trial of less than 25 mg/dL, you were down-titrated from the 150-mg dose to the 75-mg dose, or if you were on the 75-mg dose with two consecutive LDLs less than 15 mg/dL, the alirocumab was stopped, all in blinded fashion.” The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina.

At baseline, patients had a median age of 58 years, 25% were women, their median LDL was 92 mg/dL. About 89% of patients were on high dose atorvastatin/rosuvastatin. Time from index ACS to randomization was a median of 2.6 months.

The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events including CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. After a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the researchers observed highly significant 15% reduction of the primary endpoint with alirocumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0001), and a 15% reduction of death from any cause. In patients with a baseline LDL-C of 100 mg/dL or greater, the benefits of alirocumab were further amplified. “The higher your LDL, the higher your risk,” Dr. Lepor said. “The higher your risk, the greater your benefit from therapeutic intervention.”

He concluded his presentation by likening the treatment approach with PCSK9 inhibitors in ACS patients to that of chemotherapy in cancer patients. “In patients who have the very high risk of recurrence, those are the ones we want to attack with tougher chemotherapy,” he said. “Who are the patients who benefit most from PCSK9 inhibitors? ACS patients and those who are breaking through statin therapy with cardiovascular events, those with diabetes, CKD, and peripheral vascular disease.”

Dr. Lepor disclosed that he serves on the advisory board for Sanofi/Regeneron and is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Sanofi/Regeneron.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events in chronic and acute cardiovascular disease states in patients on maximally tolerated statins, according to the best available data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, there does not seem to be a floor of achieved LDL-C levels where cardiovascular outcomes are not decreased.

Those are two key lessons from recent trials of PCSK9 inhibitors that Norman E. Lepor, MD, highlighted at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. Anti-PCSK9 antibodies have shown a significant lipid-lowering effect, lowering LDL-C by 45%-55% from baseline regardless of whether patients are on statins or ezetimibe. More than 70% of high-risk patients are able to achieve an LDL-C level less than 70 mg/dL.

In two randomized trials known as SPIRE-1 and SPIRE-2, researchers compared the PCSK9 inhibitor bococizumab with placebo (N Engl J Med 2017;376:1527-39). The main difference between these two trials was the baseline cardiovascular risk was higher in SPIRE-2, particularly the baseline LDL levels. “Both trials were stopped early because of the increased incidence of antibodies against bococizumab as well as adverse events associated with that, particularly injection site reactions,” said Dr. Lepor, a cardiologist who is professor of medicine at the Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

SPIRE-1 did not show a significant difference within a short time of that trial, but SPIRE-2 showed a profound reduction in cardiovascular events within a short time. “That led to the conclusion that the higher the LDL, the higher risk you are, the more likely that you’re going to attain a more robust reduction of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Lepor said. Bococizumab, a partially humanized antibody, did not come to market because of the high incidence of anti-drug antibody and associated diminution of therapeutic effect, he added.

Next came the FOURIER trial of evolocumab, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg/dL or higher who were receiving statin therapy. Study participants received evolocumab (either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) or matching placebo as subcutaneous injections (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1713-22). “The reduction in LDL was very robust and occurred quite early, and there was consistency in terms of long-term effect,” said Dr. Lepor, a past president of the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology. Specifically, researchers observed a 15% reduction in the primary endpoints of a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization (P less than .001), and a 20% reduction in the key secondary endpoints of a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke.

“It’s important to note that these are patients who were already well treated on statins,” he said. “There really does not seem to be a floor of LDL levels where we can say there is no further benefit. Achieved LDL-C at 4 weeks did lead to the ability to prognosticate benefit. We’re not seeing an increase in situations like diabetes, neurocognitive effects, and myalgias. The incidence of adverse events are similar to placebo. We feel very good that there do not seem to be safety issues for these agents, particularly in a population of patients with very low LDLs.” Dr. Lepor went on to note that FOURIER substudies have shown that there did not seem to be any increased incidence of neurocognitive disorders in patients taking evolocumab and that diabetes “tends to be a disease amplifier.”

In a more recent trial known as ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, 18,536 acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients were randomized to alirocumab 75 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2097-107). The dose of alirocumab was increased to 150 mg every 2 weeks if the LDL was not lowered to less than 50 mg/dL. “The trial had other interesting aspects to it,” Dr. Lepor said. “If you had an LDL during the trial of less than 25 mg/dL, you were down-titrated from the 150-mg dose to the 75-mg dose, or if you were on the 75-mg dose with two consecutive LDLs less than 15 mg/dL, the alirocumab was stopped, all in blinded fashion.” The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina.

At baseline, patients had a median age of 58 years, 25% were women, their median LDL was 92 mg/dL. About 89% of patients were on high dose atorvastatin/rosuvastatin. Time from index ACS to randomization was a median of 2.6 months.

The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events including CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. After a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the researchers observed highly significant 15% reduction of the primary endpoint with alirocumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0001), and a 15% reduction of death from any cause. In patients with a baseline LDL-C of 100 mg/dL or greater, the benefits of alirocumab were further amplified. “The higher your LDL, the higher your risk,” Dr. Lepor said. “The higher your risk, the greater your benefit from therapeutic intervention.”

He concluded his presentation by likening the treatment approach with PCSK9 inhibitors in ACS patients to that of chemotherapy in cancer patients. “In patients who have the very high risk of recurrence, those are the ones we want to attack with tougher chemotherapy,” he said. “Who are the patients who benefit most from PCSK9 inhibitors? ACS patients and those who are breaking through statin therapy with cardiovascular events, those with diabetes, CKD, and peripheral vascular disease.”

Dr. Lepor disclosed that he serves on the advisory board for Sanofi/Regeneron and is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Sanofi/Regeneron.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events in chronic and acute cardiovascular disease states in patients on maximally tolerated statins, according to the best available data.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, there does not seem to be a floor of achieved LDL-C levels where cardiovascular outcomes are not decreased.

Those are two key lessons from recent trials of PCSK9 inhibitors that Norman E. Lepor, MD, highlighted at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. Anti-PCSK9 antibodies have shown a significant lipid-lowering effect, lowering LDL-C by 45%-55% from baseline regardless of whether patients are on statins or ezetimibe. More than 70% of high-risk patients are able to achieve an LDL-C level less than 70 mg/dL.

In two randomized trials known as SPIRE-1 and SPIRE-2, researchers compared the PCSK9 inhibitor bococizumab with placebo (N Engl J Med 2017;376:1527-39). The main difference between these two trials was the baseline cardiovascular risk was higher in SPIRE-2, particularly the baseline LDL levels. “Both trials were stopped early because of the increased incidence of antibodies against bococizumab as well as adverse events associated with that, particularly injection site reactions,” said Dr. Lepor, a cardiologist who is professor of medicine at the Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.

SPIRE-1 did not show a significant difference within a short time of that trial, but SPIRE-2 showed a profound reduction in cardiovascular events within a short time. “That led to the conclusion that the higher the LDL, the higher risk you are, the more likely that you’re going to attain a more robust reduction of cardiovascular events,” Dr. Lepor said. Bococizumab, a partially humanized antibody, did not come to market because of the high incidence of anti-drug antibody and associated diminution of therapeutic effect, he added.

Next came the FOURIER trial of evolocumab, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 27,564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg/dL or higher who were receiving statin therapy. Study participants received evolocumab (either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) or matching placebo as subcutaneous injections (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1713-22). “The reduction in LDL was very robust and occurred quite early, and there was consistency in terms of long-term effect,” said Dr. Lepor, a past president of the California chapter of the American College of Cardiology. Specifically, researchers observed a 15% reduction in the primary endpoints of a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization (P less than .001), and a 20% reduction in the key secondary endpoints of a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke.

“It’s important to note that these are patients who were already well treated on statins,” he said. “There really does not seem to be a floor of LDL levels where we can say there is no further benefit. Achieved LDL-C at 4 weeks did lead to the ability to prognosticate benefit. We’re not seeing an increase in situations like diabetes, neurocognitive effects, and myalgias. The incidence of adverse events are similar to placebo. We feel very good that there do not seem to be safety issues for these agents, particularly in a population of patients with very low LDLs.” Dr. Lepor went on to note that FOURIER substudies have shown that there did not seem to be any increased incidence of neurocognitive disorders in patients taking evolocumab and that diabetes “tends to be a disease amplifier.”

In a more recent trial known as ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, 18,536 acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients were randomized to alirocumab 75 mg once every 2 weeks or placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2097-107). The dose of alirocumab was increased to 150 mg every 2 weeks if the LDL was not lowered to less than 50 mg/dL. “The trial had other interesting aspects to it,” Dr. Lepor said. “If you had an LDL during the trial of less than 25 mg/dL, you were down-titrated from the 150-mg dose to the 75-mg dose, or if you were on the 75-mg dose with two consecutive LDLs less than 15 mg/dL, the alirocumab was stopped, all in blinded fashion.” The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina.

At baseline, patients had a median age of 58 years, 25% were women, their median LDL was 92 mg/dL. About 89% of patients were on high dose atorvastatin/rosuvastatin. Time from index ACS to randomization was a median of 2.6 months.

The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events including CHD death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. After a median follow-up of 2.8 years, the researchers observed highly significant 15% reduction of the primary endpoint with alirocumab compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0001), and a 15% reduction of death from any cause. In patients with a baseline LDL-C of 100 mg/dL or greater, the benefits of alirocumab were further amplified. “The higher your LDL, the higher your risk,” Dr. Lepor said. “The higher your risk, the greater your benefit from therapeutic intervention.”

He concluded his presentation by likening the treatment approach with PCSK9 inhibitors in ACS patients to that of chemotherapy in cancer patients. “In patients who have the very high risk of recurrence, those are the ones we want to attack with tougher chemotherapy,” he said. “Who are the patients who benefit most from PCSK9 inhibitors? ACS patients and those who are breaking through statin therapy with cardiovascular events, those with diabetes, CKD, and peripheral vascular disease.”

Dr. Lepor disclosed that he serves on the advisory board for Sanofi/Regeneron and is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Sanofi/Regeneron.

[email protected]

BERLIN – An investigational oral formulation of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) to a greater extent than did placebo at all doses tested in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the phase 3a PIONEER 1 trial.

The estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26 – the primary endpoint – using an on-treatment analysis was –0.8% with a once-daily dose of 3 mg, –1.3% with a once-daily dose of 7 mg, and –1.5% with a once-daily dose of 14 mg. The corresponding value for placebo was –0.1%, with all comparisons statistically significant (P less than .001).

The on-treatment analysis evaluated treatment effects for all randomized patients (n = 703) and assumed that all subjects remained on-treatment and excluded the effect of any rescue medication. Results for an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis provided similar results, however, with estimated mean changes in HbA_1c of –0.9%, –1.2%, and –1.4% for the three respective semaglutide doses and –0.3% for placebo.

“There was a very nice dose-dependent decrease in HbA_1c, which was superior to placebo for all doses of semaglutide” said study investigator Martin Haluzík, MD, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“I think it’s quite important to stress the magnitude of the decrease of HbA_1c, because with the highest dose it was –1.5% from a baseline of 8%, which I believe is something that hasn’t ever really been seen with any other oral antidiabetic medication,” added Dr. Haluzík, professor of internal medicine at the 1st Faculty of Medicine at Charles University and deputy head of the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, both in Prague.

Currently, GLP-1 RAs are available only in a subcutaneous formulation, Dr. Haluzík reminded his audience, adding that oral semaglutide was the first GLP-1 RA to be developed in a tablet formulation and was in the late stages of clinical development.

PIONEER 1 is the first of 10 phase 3a trials with oral semaglutide to be reported. “Additional studies, across the full spectrum of diabetes care, in special populations, comparing it with active comparators with varied trial duration, have been completed or will be completed in 2018,” said coinvestigator for the study Vanita Aroda, MD, during a separate presentation at a dedicated symposium on the PIONEER program.

Dr. Aroda, the director of the diabetes research program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, observed that oral semaglutide was being evaluated from early care as monotherapy in the PIONEER 1 study. The other trials, such as PIONEER 2, PIONEER 3, PIONEER 4, and PIONEER 7 were looking at oral semaglutide in combination with oral antidiabetic agents versus various active comparators; PIONEER 5 and PIONEER 6 were in special populations; and PIONEER 8 was looking at its use on top of basal insulin. Two further trials are also part of the study program.

“I think this is the first time that we actually have completed data of an entire program, including cardiovascular data, all within the same year,” Dr. Aroda said. “All of the studies are in the process of data analysis or data reporting.”

PIONEER 1 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining efficacy and safety of semaglutide versus placebo in 703 adults with drug-naive T2DM who were being treated with diet and exercise only.

Three doses of oral semaglutide – 3 mg, 7 mg, and 14 mg – were assessed and compared with placebo. There was a fixed 4-week dose escalation period, with all patients starting treatment with 3 mg of semaglutide and then increasing to 7 mg by week 4 and 14 mg by week 8. This was to try to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal side effects, which are known to occur with GLP-1 RAs.

Secondary outcome measures were change in body weight, fasting plasma glucose, HbA_1c below a target of 7% (53 mmol/mol), which were all measured from baseline to week 26; adverse events, including severe and blood glucose–confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes, were assessed out to week 31.

The average age of patients in the trial was around 55 years, around half were female, and the starting HbA_1c was approximately 8%.The mean body weight ranged from 86.9 kg to 89 kg in the different treatment groups, with a similar body mass index of about 32 kg/m².

Clinically meaningful weight loss, compared with placebo, was only achieved with the highest dose of oral semaglutide, with a –4.1 kg reduction versus –1.5 kg for placebo from baseline to week 26 (P less than .001, on-treatment analysis). Reductions in body weight for the 3-mg and 7-mg oral semaglutide doses were a respective –1.7 kg and –2.5 kg. ITT results were again similar, with weight losses of –1.5, –2.3, and –3.7 kg for the 3-, 7-, and 14-mg doses of oral semaglutide, respectively, and –1.4 kg for placebo.

More patients treated with oral semaglutide 3, 7, or 14 mg versus placebo achieved an HbA_1c of below 7% (59.1%, 71.9%, and 80.3%, respectively, vs. 33.8%) or a body weight loss of 5% or more (21.3%, 28.7%, and 44.3% vs. 15.7%).

Furthermore, more patients treated with oral semaglutide achieved an HbA_1c of or below 7% without hypoglycemic episodes or body weight gain than did those given placebo. There were also more patients who achieved an HbA_1c reduction of at least 1% and a weight loss of 3% or higher.

“Oral semaglutide demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile consistent with that of [injectable] GLP-1 RAs,” Dr. Haluzík reported. Adverse events were seen in 57.7%, 53.1%, and 56.6%of patients treated with 3, 7, and 14 mg of oral semaglutide and 55.6% of those treated with placebo.

The most common adverse events seen with oral semaglutide affected the gastrointestinal tract, with nausea affecting 8%, 5.1%, and 16% of 3, 7, and 14 mg–treated patients versus 5.6% of placebo-treated patients. Vomiting affected a respective 2.9%, 4.6%, 6.9%, and 2.1%, and diarrhea a respective 8.6%, 5.1%, 5.1%, and 2.2%.

Severe or blood glucose–confirmed, symptomatic hypoglycemia was reported in 2.9%, 1.1%, and 0.6%of those treated with 3, 7, 14 mg of oral semaglutide and 0.6% of placebo-treated patients.

PIONEER 1 represents a “step change in GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy”, said Cliff Bailey, MD, who discussed the trial aa the EASD’s independent commentator during a symposium on the PIONEER program. These data are “leading to a new delivery route for GLP-1 receptor agonists, from injection to oral,” and “this can be done with good metabolic efficacy, with substantial reductions in A_1c and body weight, and with a safety profile that’s comparable to the subcutaneous injection.”

Dr. Bailey, who is professor of clinical science at Aston University in Birmingham, England, noted, however, the oral dosing of semaglutide “requires patient commitment because it needs to be taken before breakfast time, and it may also, to some extent, affect the timing of some of the other medications.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Haluzík disclosed acting as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Mundipharma, Novatin, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Aroda was an investigator in the PIONEER 1 study and disclosed acting as a consultant to Novo Nordisk; she also disclosed relationships with multiple other pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, BMS, Calbra, Eisai, Elcelyx Therapeutics, Janssen, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Bailey acknowledged attending advisory boards, undertaking ad hoc consultancy work, and receiving research and travel support from several pharmaceutical companies that included Novo Nordisk.

SOURCES: Haluzík M et al. EASD 2018, Abstract 38; Aroda V. EASD 2018, Session S18 - PIONEER Trial; Bailey C. EASD 2018, Session S18 - PIONEER Trial.

BERLIN – An investigational oral formulation of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) to a greater extent than did placebo at all doses tested in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the phase 3a PIONEER 1 trial.

The estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26 – the primary endpoint – using an on-treatment analysis was –0.8% with a once-daily dose of 3 mg, –1.3% with a once-daily dose of 7 mg, and –1.5% with a once-daily dose of 14 mg. The corresponding value for placebo was –0.1%, with all comparisons statistically significant (P less than .001).

The on-treatment analysis evaluated treatment effects for all randomized patients (n = 703) and assumed that all subjects remained on-treatment and excluded the effect of any rescue medication. Results for an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis provided similar results, however, with estimated mean changes in HbA_1c of –0.9%, –1.2%, and –1.4% for the three respective semaglutide doses and –0.3% for placebo.

“There was a very nice dose-dependent decrease in HbA_1c, which was superior to placebo for all doses of semaglutide” said study investigator Martin Haluzík, MD, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“I think it’s quite important to stress the magnitude of the decrease of HbA_1c, because with the highest dose it was –1.5% from a baseline of 8%, which I believe is something that hasn’t ever really been seen with any other oral antidiabetic medication,” added Dr. Haluzík, professor of internal medicine at the 1st Faculty of Medicine at Charles University and deputy head of the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, both in Prague.

Currently, GLP-1 RAs are available only in a subcutaneous formulation, Dr. Haluzík reminded his audience, adding that oral semaglutide was the first GLP-1 RA to be developed in a tablet formulation and was in the late stages of clinical development.

PIONEER 1 is the first of 10 phase 3a trials with oral semaglutide to be reported. “Additional studies, across the full spectrum of diabetes care, in special populations, comparing it with active comparators with varied trial duration, have been completed or will be completed in 2018,” said coinvestigator for the study Vanita Aroda, MD, during a separate presentation at a dedicated symposium on the PIONEER program.

Dr. Aroda, the director of the diabetes research program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, observed that oral semaglutide was being evaluated from early care as monotherapy in the PIONEER 1 study. The other trials, such as PIONEER 2, PIONEER 3, PIONEER 4, and PIONEER 7 were looking at oral semaglutide in combination with oral antidiabetic agents versus various active comparators; PIONEER 5 and PIONEER 6 were in special populations; and PIONEER 8 was looking at its use on top of basal insulin. Two further trials are also part of the study program.

“I think this is the first time that we actually have completed data of an entire program, including cardiovascular data, all within the same year,” Dr. Aroda said. “All of the studies are in the process of data analysis or data reporting.”

PIONEER 1 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining efficacy and safety of semaglutide versus placebo in 703 adults with drug-naive T2DM who were being treated with diet and exercise only.

Three doses of oral semaglutide – 3 mg, 7 mg, and 14 mg – were assessed and compared with placebo. There was a fixed 4-week dose escalation period, with all patients starting treatment with 3 mg of semaglutide and then increasing to 7 mg by week 4 and 14 mg by week 8. This was to try to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal side effects, which are known to occur with GLP-1 RAs.

Secondary outcome measures were change in body weight, fasting plasma glucose, HbA_1c below a target of 7% (53 mmol/mol), which were all measured from baseline to week 26; adverse events, including severe and blood glucose–confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes, were assessed out to week 31.

The average age of patients in the trial was around 55 years, around half were female, and the starting HbA_1c was approximately 8%.The mean body weight ranged from 86.9 kg to 89 kg in the different treatment groups, with a similar body mass index of about 32 kg/m².

Clinically meaningful weight loss, compared with placebo, was only achieved with the highest dose of oral semaglutide, with a –4.1 kg reduction versus –1.5 kg for placebo from baseline to week 26 (P less than .001, on-treatment analysis). Reductions in body weight for the 3-mg and 7-mg oral semaglutide doses were a respective –1.7 kg and –2.5 kg. ITT results were again similar, with weight losses of –1.5, –2.3, and –3.7 kg for the 3-, 7-, and 14-mg doses of oral semaglutide, respectively, and –1.4 kg for placebo.

More patients treated with oral semaglutide 3, 7, or 14 mg versus placebo achieved an HbA_1c of below 7% (59.1%, 71.9%, and 80.3%, respectively, vs. 33.8%) or a body weight loss of 5% or more (21.3%, 28.7%, and 44.3% vs. 15.7%).

Furthermore, more patients treated with oral semaglutide achieved an HbA_1c of or below 7% without hypoglycemic episodes or body weight gain than did those given placebo. There were also more patients who achieved an HbA_1c reduction of at least 1% and a weight loss of 3% or higher.

“Oral semaglutide demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile consistent with that of [injectable] GLP-1 RAs,” Dr. Haluzík reported. Adverse events were seen in 57.7%, 53.1%, and 56.6%of patients treated with 3, 7, and 14 mg of oral semaglutide and 55.6% of those treated with placebo.

The most common adverse events seen with oral semaglutide affected the gastrointestinal tract, with nausea affecting 8%, 5.1%, and 16% of 3, 7, and 14 mg–treated patients versus 5.6% of placebo-treated patients. Vomiting affected a respective 2.9%, 4.6%, 6.9%, and 2.1%, and diarrhea a respective 8.6%, 5.1%, 5.1%, and 2.2%.

Severe or blood glucose–confirmed, symptomatic hypoglycemia was reported in 2.9%, 1.1%, and 0.6%of those treated with 3, 7, 14 mg of oral semaglutide and 0.6% of placebo-treated patients.

PIONEER 1 represents a “step change in GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy”, said Cliff Bailey, MD, who discussed the trial aa the EASD’s independent commentator during a symposium on the PIONEER program. These data are “leading to a new delivery route for GLP-1 receptor agonists, from injection to oral,” and “this can be done with good metabolic efficacy, with substantial reductions in A_1c and body weight, and with a safety profile that’s comparable to the subcutaneous injection.”

Dr. Bailey, who is professor of clinical science at Aston University in Birmingham, England, noted, however, the oral dosing of semaglutide “requires patient commitment because it needs to be taken before breakfast time, and it may also, to some extent, affect the timing of some of the other medications.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Haluzík disclosed acting as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Mundipharma, Novatin, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Aroda was an investigator in the PIONEER 1 study and disclosed acting as a consultant to Novo Nordisk; she also disclosed relationships with multiple other pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, BMS, Calbra, Eisai, Elcelyx Therapeutics, Janssen, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Bailey acknowledged attending advisory boards, undertaking ad hoc consultancy work, and receiving research and travel support from several pharmaceutical companies that included Novo Nordisk.

SOURCES: Haluzík M et al. EASD 2018, Abstract 38; Aroda V. EASD 2018, Session S18 - PIONEER Trial; Bailey C. EASD 2018, Session S18 - PIONEER Trial.

BERLIN – An investigational oral formulation of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) to a greater extent than did placebo at all doses tested in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the phase 3a PIONEER 1 trial.

The estimated mean change in HbA_1c from baseline to week 26 – the primary endpoint – using an on-treatment analysis was –0.8% with a once-daily dose of 3 mg, –1.3% with a once-daily dose of 7 mg, and –1.5% with a once-daily dose of 14 mg. The corresponding value for placebo was –0.1%, with all comparisons statistically significant (P less than .001).

The on-treatment analysis evaluated treatment effects for all randomized patients (n = 703) and assumed that all subjects remained on-treatment and excluded the effect of any rescue medication. Results for an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis provided similar results, however, with estimated mean changes in HbA_1c of –0.9%, –1.2%, and –1.4% for the three respective semaglutide doses and –0.3% for placebo.

“There was a very nice dose-dependent decrease in HbA_1c, which was superior to placebo for all doses of semaglutide” said study investigator Martin Haluzík, MD, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“I think it’s quite important to stress the magnitude of the decrease of HbA_1c, because with the highest dose it was –1.5% from a baseline of 8%, which I believe is something that hasn’t ever really been seen with any other oral antidiabetic medication,” added Dr. Haluzík, professor of internal medicine at the 1st Faculty of Medicine at Charles University and deputy head of the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, both in Prague.

Currently, GLP-1 RAs are available only in a subcutaneous formulation, Dr. Haluzík reminded his audience, adding that oral semaglutide was the first GLP-1 RA to be developed in a tablet formulation and was in the late stages of clinical development.

PIONEER 1 is the first of 10 phase 3a trials with oral semaglutide to be reported. “Additional studies, across the full spectrum of diabetes care, in special populations, comparing it with active comparators with varied trial duration, have been completed or will be completed in 2018,” said coinvestigator for the study Vanita Aroda, MD, during a separate presentation at a dedicated symposium on the PIONEER program.

Dr. Aroda, the director of the diabetes research program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, observed that oral semaglutide was being evaluated from early care as monotherapy in the PIONEER 1 study. The other trials, such as PIONEER 2, PIONEER 3, PIONEER 4, and PIONEER 7 were looking at oral semaglutide in combination with oral antidiabetic agents versus various active comparators; PIONEER 5 and PIONEER 6 were in special populations; and PIONEER 8 was looking at its use on top of basal insulin. Two further trials are also part of the study program.

“I think this is the first time that we actually have completed data of an entire program, including cardiovascular data, all within the same year,” Dr. Aroda said. “All of the studies are in the process of data analysis or data reporting.”

PIONEER 1 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining efficacy and safety of semaglutide versus placebo in 703 adults with drug-naive T2DM who were being treated with diet and exercise only.

Three doses of oral semaglutide – 3 mg, 7 mg, and 14 mg – were assessed and compared with placebo. There was a fixed 4-week dose escalation period, with all patients starting treatment with 3 mg of semaglutide and then increasing to 7 mg by week 4 and 14 mg by week 8. This was to try to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal side effects, which are known to occur with GLP-1 RAs.

Secondary outcome measures were change in body weight, fasting plasma glucose, HbA_1c below a target of 7% (53 mmol/mol), which were all measured from baseline to week 26; adverse events, including severe and blood glucose–confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes, were assessed out to week 31.

The average age of patients in the trial was around 55 years, around half were female, and the starting HbA_1c was approximately 8%.The mean body weight ranged from 86.9 kg to 89 kg in the different treatment groups, with a similar body mass index of about 32 kg/m².

Clinically meaningful weight loss, compared with placebo, was only achieved with the highest dose of oral semaglutide, with a –4.1 kg reduction versus –1.5 kg for placebo from baseline to week 26 (P less than .001, on-treatment analysis). Reductions in body weight for the 3-mg and 7-mg oral semaglutide doses were a respective –1.7 kg and –2.5 kg. ITT results were again similar, with weight losses of –1.5, –2.3, and –3.7 kg for the 3-, 7-, and 14-mg doses of oral semaglutide, respectively, and –1.4 kg for placebo.

More patients treated with oral semaglutide 3, 7, or 14 mg versus placebo achieved an HbA_1c of below 7% (59.1%, 71.9%, and 80.3%, respectively, vs. 33.8%) or a body weight loss of 5% or more (21.3%, 28.7%, and 44.3% vs. 15.7%).

Furthermore, more patients treated with oral semaglutide achieved an HbA_1c of or below 7% without hypoglycemic episodes or body weight gain than did those given placebo. There were also more patients who achieved an HbA_1c reduction of at least 1% and a weight loss of 3% or higher.

“Oral semaglutide demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile consistent with that of [injectable] GLP-1 RAs,” Dr. Haluzík reported. Adverse events were seen in 57.7%, 53.1%, and 56.6%of patients treated with 3, 7, and 14 mg of oral semaglutide and 55.6% of those treated with placebo.

The most common adverse events seen with oral semaglutide affected the gastrointestinal tract, with nausea affecting 8%, 5.1%, and 16% of 3, 7, and 14 mg–treated patients versus 5.6% of placebo-treated patients. Vomiting affected a respective 2.9%, 4.6%, 6.9%, and 2.1%, and diarrhea a respective 8.6%, 5.1%, 5.1%, and 2.2%.

Severe or blood glucose–confirmed, symptomatic hypoglycemia was reported in 2.9%, 1.1%, and 0.6%of those treated with 3, 7, 14 mg of oral semaglutide and 0.6% of placebo-treated patients.

PIONEER 1 represents a “step change in GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy”, said Cliff Bailey, MD, who discussed the trial aa the EASD’s independent commentator during a symposium on the PIONEER program. These data are “leading to a new delivery route for GLP-1 receptor agonists, from injection to oral,” and “this can be done with good metabolic efficacy, with substantial reductions in A_1c and body weight, and with a safety profile that’s comparable to the subcutaneous injection.”

Dr. Bailey, who is professor of clinical science at Aston University in Birmingham, England, noted, however, the oral dosing of semaglutide “requires patient commitment because it needs to be taken before breakfast time, and it may also, to some extent, affect the timing of some of the other medications.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Haluzík disclosed acting as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Mundipharma, Novatin, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Aroda was an investigator in the PIONEER 1 study and disclosed acting as a consultant to Novo Nordisk; she also disclosed relationships with multiple other pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, BMS, Calbra, Eisai, Elcelyx Therapeutics, Janssen, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr. Bailey acknowledged attending advisory boards, undertaking ad hoc consultancy work, and receiving research and travel support from several pharmaceutical companies that included Novo Nordisk.

SOURCES: Haluzík M et al. EASD 2018, Abstract 38; Aroda V. EASD 2018, Session S18 - PIONEER Trial; Bailey C. EASD 2018, Session S18 - PIONEER Trial.

Clinical question: Does metformin increase the risk of lactic acidosis in chronic kidney disease (CKD)?

Background: Metformin is first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) because of its low cost, safety, and potential cardiovascular benefit, but fear of lactic acidosis has limited its use in CKD. The risk of acidosis in CKD patients with varying levels of renal function has not been clearly defined.

Study design: Retrospective community-based cohort study.

Setting: Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania.

Synopsis: A total of 75,413 patients were identified with diagnostic codes or medication prescriptions indicating DM. Forty-five percent of patients were taking metformin at enrollment, increasing by 18% over the 5.7 years of median follow-up. The primary outcome was inpatient acidosis, defined by an ICD-9-CM code capturing multiple forms of acidosis but excluding diabetic ketoacidosis.

When metformin users and nonusers were compared, risk of acidosis was similar for the entire cohort and for subgroups of patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 90, 60-89, 45-59, and 30-44. Conversely, metformin use was associated with a higher risk of acidosis in patients with eGFR less than 30 (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-3.22). Metformin not increasing the risk of acidosis at eGFR greater than 30 also was noted in an additional analysis using sulfonylurea medications as an active comparator and was replicated in a separate database with 82,000 patients from 350 private health systems. As with all observational studies, this study is limited by the potential for residual confounding.

Bottom line: Metformin appears to be safe in CKD patients with eGFR above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².



Citation: Lazarus B et al. Association of metformin use with risk of lactic acidosis across the range of kidney function: A community- based cohort study. JAMA Int Med. 2018;178(7):903-10.

Dr. Wanner is director, hospital medicine section, and associate chief, division of general internal medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Clinical question: Does metformin increase the risk of lactic acidosis in chronic kidney disease (CKD)?

Background: Metformin is first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) because of its low cost, safety, and potential cardiovascular benefit, but fear of lactic acidosis has limited its use in CKD. The risk of acidosis in CKD patients with varying levels of renal function has not been clearly defined.

Study design: Retrospective community-based cohort study.

Setting: Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania.

Synopsis: A total of 75,413 patients were identified with diagnostic codes or medication prescriptions indicating DM. Forty-five percent of patients were taking metformin at enrollment, increasing by 18% over the 5.7 years of median follow-up. The primary outcome was inpatient acidosis, defined by an ICD-9-CM code capturing multiple forms of acidosis but excluding diabetic ketoacidosis.

When metformin users and nonusers were compared, risk of acidosis was similar for the entire cohort and for subgroups of patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 90, 60-89, 45-59, and 30-44. Conversely, metformin use was associated with a higher risk of acidosis in patients with eGFR less than 30 (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-3.22). Metformin not increasing the risk of acidosis at eGFR greater than 30 also was noted in an additional analysis using sulfonylurea medications as an active comparator and was replicated in a separate database with 82,000 patients from 350 private health systems. As with all observational studies, this study is limited by the potential for residual confounding.

Bottom line: Metformin appears to be safe in CKD patients with eGFR above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².



Citation: Lazarus B et al. Association of metformin use with risk of lactic acidosis across the range of kidney function: A community- based cohort study. JAMA Int Med. 2018;178(7):903-10.

Dr. Wanner is director, hospital medicine section, and associate chief, division of general internal medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Clinical question: Does metformin increase the risk of lactic acidosis in chronic kidney disease (CKD)?

Background: Metformin is first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) because of its low cost, safety, and potential cardiovascular benefit, but fear of lactic acidosis has limited its use in CKD. The risk of acidosis in CKD patients with varying levels of renal function has not been clearly defined.

Study design: Retrospective community-based cohort study.

Setting: Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania.

Synopsis: A total of 75,413 patients were identified with diagnostic codes or medication prescriptions indicating DM. Forty-five percent of patients were taking metformin at enrollment, increasing by 18% over the 5.7 years of median follow-up. The primary outcome was inpatient acidosis, defined by an ICD-9-CM code capturing multiple forms of acidosis but excluding diabetic ketoacidosis.

When metformin users and nonusers were compared, risk of acidosis was similar for the entire cohort and for subgroups of patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 90, 60-89, 45-59, and 30-44. Conversely, metformin use was associated with a higher risk of acidosis in patients with eGFR less than 30 (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-3.22). Metformin not increasing the risk of acidosis at eGFR greater than 30 also was noted in an additional analysis using sulfonylurea medications as an active comparator and was replicated in a separate database with 82,000 patients from 350 private health systems. As with all observational studies, this study is limited by the potential for residual confounding.

Bottom line: Metformin appears to be safe in CKD patients with eGFR above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m².



Citation: Lazarus B et al. Association of metformin use with risk of lactic acidosis across the range of kidney function: A community- based cohort study. JAMA Int Med. 2018;178(7):903-10.

Dr. Wanner is director, hospital medicine section, and associate chief, division of general internal medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

LOS ANGELES – When it comes to understanding the impact of diet on cardiovascular disease, mounting evidence suggests that a high carbohydrate diet is associated with a higher risk of mortality, while consumption of fats, including saturated and unsaturated fats, is associated with a lower risk of mortality.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“In assessing dietary fats in cardiovascular disease, we are struggling to create a science base for nutrition,”Ronald M. Krauss, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “There are various categories of evidence that we all consider. Randomized clinical trials are the most robust, but, in this field, there are few and, of these, a number have been subject to criticism. Observational cohort studies provide much of the data on which we base our dietary recommendations. This is a problem, because dietary information can be flawed, it’s challenging to adjust for all the covariates in an observational trial, and you can’t determine causation.”

Dr. Krauss, senior scientist and director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute, emphasized that current dietary recommendations are often not based on food context. Meta-analyses may be used to make dietary recommendations, “but you have to be careful,” he said. “There is quite a bit of subjectivity in the criteria used to select the studies. Finally, there is individual variability in dietary effects. You lose that when you do statistical analysis in large study populations.”

An analysis of prospective observational cohort studies over the past several years showed that there is no significant effect of saturated fat intake on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes mellitus (BMJ. 2015 Aug 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3978). However, it found that trans fats are associated with all-cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality. A more recent meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease in the past 5 years yielded similar findings.

“Saturated fat intake per se is not associated with all-cause mortality, CVD, CHD, stroke, or type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Krauss, who was an author of a recent analysis on dietary fat and cardiometabolic health (BMJ. 2018 Jun 13. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2139). “The replacement nutrient is important, but there has been controversy as to whether replacing saturated fat with n-6 (omega-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids reduced CHD events, CHD mortality, or total mortality.”

Other research has demonstrated differences in the relationship of saturated fat from meat sources vs. that from dairy sources. An analysis of 5,209 subjects who participated in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study over 10 years found that a higher intake of dairy saturated fat was associated with lower CVD risk (Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96[2]:397-404). In contrast, a higher intake of saturated fat from meat was associated with greater CVD risk.

In what Dr. Krauss said is the most extensive prospective cohort study of its kind to date, researchers led by Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, collected self-reported dietary data from 135,335 people aged 35-70 years in 18 countries, and grouped them according to the amount of carbohydrate, fat, and protein they consumed (Lancet. 2017 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[17]32252-3). Outcomes for the study, known as PURE, were major CVD and total mortality.

Over a median follow-up of 7.4 years, the researchers documented 5,796 deaths and 4,784 major cardiovascular disease events. Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs. lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, hazard ratio 1.28; P = .0001) but not with the risk of CVD or CVD mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs. quintile 1, total fat: HR, 0.77, P less than .0001; saturated fat, HR, 0.86, P = .0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0.81, P less than .0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0.80, P less than .0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs. quintile 1, HR, 0.79; P = .0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

“The fat intake becomes a protective factor, while carbohydrates are the bad guys,” said Dr. Krauss, who also holds faculty positions at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley. He acknowledged certain limitations of PURE, including the fact that the random measurement used in the assessment of diet may dilute real associations, that high carbohydrate and low-fat diets may be a proxy for poverty, and that data on vegetable oil use were not included.

Dr. Krauss went on to note that work from other studies has shown that the Apo B/Apo A-1 ratio and its association with small – but not large – LDL particles is a stronger marker than is LDL cholesterol for predicting dietary effects on CVD risk (Lancet. 2004;364[9438]:937-52 and Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2014;34[5]:1069-77). “These risk measures can be improved by lowering dietary carbohydrates, and not by lowering saturated fats,” he said.

Dr. Krauss disclosed that he has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and Dairy Management Inc. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Virta Health and DayTwo and holds a patent related to lipoprotein particle analysis.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – When it comes to understanding the impact of diet on cardiovascular disease, mounting evidence suggests that a high carbohydrate diet is associated with a higher risk of mortality, while consumption of fats, including saturated and unsaturated fats, is associated with a lower risk of mortality.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“In assessing dietary fats in cardiovascular disease, we are struggling to create a science base for nutrition,”Ronald M. Krauss, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “There are various categories of evidence that we all consider. Randomized clinical trials are the most robust, but, in this field, there are few and, of these, a number have been subject to criticism. Observational cohort studies provide much of the data on which we base our dietary recommendations. This is a problem, because dietary information can be flawed, it’s challenging to adjust for all the covariates in an observational trial, and you can’t determine causation.”

Dr. Krauss, senior scientist and director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute, emphasized that current dietary recommendations are often not based on food context. Meta-analyses may be used to make dietary recommendations, “but you have to be careful,” he said. “There is quite a bit of subjectivity in the criteria used to select the studies. Finally, there is individual variability in dietary effects. You lose that when you do statistical analysis in large study populations.”

An analysis of prospective observational cohort studies over the past several years showed that there is no significant effect of saturated fat intake on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes mellitus (BMJ. 2015 Aug 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3978). However, it found that trans fats are associated with all-cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality. A more recent meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease in the past 5 years yielded similar findings.

“Saturated fat intake per se is not associated with all-cause mortality, CVD, CHD, stroke, or type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Krauss, who was an author of a recent analysis on dietary fat and cardiometabolic health (BMJ. 2018 Jun 13. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2139). “The replacement nutrient is important, but there has been controversy as to whether replacing saturated fat with n-6 (omega-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids reduced CHD events, CHD mortality, or total mortality.”

Other research has demonstrated differences in the relationship of saturated fat from meat sources vs. that from dairy sources. An analysis of 5,209 subjects who participated in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study over 10 years found that a higher intake of dairy saturated fat was associated with lower CVD risk (Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96[2]:397-404). In contrast, a higher intake of saturated fat from meat was associated with greater CVD risk.

In what Dr. Krauss said is the most extensive prospective cohort study of its kind to date, researchers led by Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, collected self-reported dietary data from 135,335 people aged 35-70 years in 18 countries, and grouped them according to the amount of carbohydrate, fat, and protein they consumed (Lancet. 2017 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[17]32252-3). Outcomes for the study, known as PURE, were major CVD and total mortality.

Over a median follow-up of 7.4 years, the researchers documented 5,796 deaths and 4,784 major cardiovascular disease events. Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs. lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, hazard ratio 1.28; P = .0001) but not with the risk of CVD or CVD mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs. quintile 1, total fat: HR, 0.77, P less than .0001; saturated fat, HR, 0.86, P = .0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0.81, P less than .0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0.80, P less than .0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs. quintile 1, HR, 0.79; P = .0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

“The fat intake becomes a protective factor, while carbohydrates are the bad guys,” said Dr. Krauss, who also holds faculty positions at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley. He acknowledged certain limitations of PURE, including the fact that the random measurement used in the assessment of diet may dilute real associations, that high carbohydrate and low-fat diets may be a proxy for poverty, and that data on vegetable oil use were not included.

Dr. Krauss went on to note that work from other studies has shown that the Apo B/Apo A-1 ratio and its association with small – but not large – LDL particles is a stronger marker than is LDL cholesterol for predicting dietary effects on CVD risk (Lancet. 2004;364[9438]:937-52 and Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2014;34[5]:1069-77). “These risk measures can be improved by lowering dietary carbohydrates, and not by lowering saturated fats,” he said.

Dr. Krauss disclosed that he has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and Dairy Management Inc. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Virta Health and DayTwo and holds a patent related to lipoprotein particle analysis.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – When it comes to understanding the impact of diet on cardiovascular disease, mounting evidence suggests that a high carbohydrate diet is associated with a higher risk of mortality, while consumption of fats, including saturated and unsaturated fats, is associated with a lower risk of mortality.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“In assessing dietary fats in cardiovascular disease, we are struggling to create a science base for nutrition,”Ronald M. Krauss, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “There are various categories of evidence that we all consider. Randomized clinical trials are the most robust, but, in this field, there are few and, of these, a number have been subject to criticism. Observational cohort studies provide much of the data on which we base our dietary recommendations. This is a problem, because dietary information can be flawed, it’s challenging to adjust for all the covariates in an observational trial, and you can’t determine causation.”

Dr. Krauss, senior scientist and director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland (Calif.) Research Institute, emphasized that current dietary recommendations are often not based on food context. Meta-analyses may be used to make dietary recommendations, “but you have to be careful,” he said. “There is quite a bit of subjectivity in the criteria used to select the studies. Finally, there is individual variability in dietary effects. You lose that when you do statistical analysis in large study populations.”

An analysis of prospective observational cohort studies over the past several years showed that there is no significant effect of saturated fat intake on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes mellitus (BMJ. 2015 Aug 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3978). However, it found that trans fats are associated with all-cause mortality, total CHD, and CHD mortality. A more recent meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials of saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease in the past 5 years yielded similar findings.

“Saturated fat intake per se is not associated with all-cause mortality, CVD, CHD, stroke, or type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Krauss, who was an author of a recent analysis on dietary fat and cardiometabolic health (BMJ. 2018 Jun 13. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k2139). “The replacement nutrient is important, but there has been controversy as to whether replacing saturated fat with n-6 (omega-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids reduced CHD events, CHD mortality, or total mortality.”

Other research has demonstrated differences in the relationship of saturated fat from meat sources vs. that from dairy sources. An analysis of 5,209 subjects who participated in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study over 10 years found that a higher intake of dairy saturated fat was associated with lower CVD risk (Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96[2]:397-404). In contrast, a higher intake of saturated fat from meat was associated with greater CVD risk.

In what Dr. Krauss said is the most extensive prospective cohort study of its kind to date, researchers led by Mahshid Dehghan, PhD, collected self-reported dietary data from 135,335 people aged 35-70 years in 18 countries, and grouped them according to the amount of carbohydrate, fat, and protein they consumed (Lancet. 2017 Aug 29. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[17]32252-3). Outcomes for the study, known as PURE, were major CVD and total mortality.

Over a median follow-up of 7.4 years, the researchers documented 5,796 deaths and 4,784 major cardiovascular disease events. Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality (highest [quintile 5] vs. lowest quintile [quintile 1] category, hazard ratio 1.28; P = .0001) but not with the risk of CVD or CVD mortality. Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5 vs. quintile 1, total fat: HR, 0.77, P less than .0001; saturated fat, HR, 0.86, P = .0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0.81, P less than .0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0.80, P less than .0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5 vs. quintile 1, HR, 0.79; P = .0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.

“The fat intake becomes a protective factor, while carbohydrates are the bad guys,” said Dr. Krauss, who also holds faculty positions at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of California, Berkeley. He acknowledged certain limitations of PURE, including the fact that the random measurement used in the assessment of diet may dilute real associations, that high carbohydrate and low-fat diets may be a proxy for poverty, and that data on vegetable oil use were not included.

Dr. Krauss went on to note that work from other studies has shown that the Apo B/Apo A-1 ratio and its association with small – but not large – LDL particles is a stronger marker than is LDL cholesterol for predicting dietary effects on CVD risk (Lancet. 2004;364[9438]:937-52 and Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2014;34[5]:1069-77). “These risk measures can be improved by lowering dietary carbohydrates, and not by lowering saturated fats,” he said.

Dr. Krauss disclosed that he has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and Dairy Management Inc. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Virta Health and DayTwo and holds a patent related to lipoprotein particle analysis.

[email protected]

Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorder are associated with a “substantial risk” of metabolic and cardiovascular disorders such as obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and circulatory system diseases, according to a study published online Jan. 14 in JAMA Neurology.

The movement disorders are associated with cardiometabolic problems “even after taking into account a number of covariates and shared familial confounders and excluding relevant psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. “The results highlight the importance of carefully monitoring cardiometabolic health in patients with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder across the lifespan, particularly in those with comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

Gustaf Brander, a researcher in the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and his colleagues conducted a longitudinal population-based cohort study of individuals living in Sweden between Jan. 1, 1973, and Dec. 31, 2013. The researchers assessed outcomes for patients with previously validated diagnoses of Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder in the Swedish National Patient Register. Main outcomes included obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, T2DM, and cardiovascular diseases, including ischemic heart diseases, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular diseases, transient ischemic attack, and arteriosclerosis. In addition, the researchers identified families with full siblings discordant for Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder.

Of the more than 14 million individuals in the cohort, 7,804 (76.4% male; median age at first diagnosis, 13.3 years) had a diagnosis of Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder in specialist care. Furthermore, the cohort included 5,141 families with full siblings who were discordant for these disorders.

Individuals with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder had a higher risk for any metabolic or cardiovascular disorder, compared with the general population (hazard ratio adjusted by sex and birth year [aHR], 1.99) and sibling controls (aHR, 1.37). Specifically, individuals with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder had higher risks for obesity (aHR, 2.76), T2DM(aHR, 1.67), and circulatory system diseases (aHR, 1.76).

The increased risk of any cardiometabolic disorder was significantly greater for males than it was for females (aHRs, 2.13 vs. 1.79), as was the risk of obesity (aHRs, 3.24 vs. 1.97).

The increased risk for cardiometabolic disorders in this patient population was evident by age 8 years. Exclusion of those patients with comorbid ADHD reduced but did not eliminate the risk (aHR, 1.52). The exclusion of other comorbidities did not significantly affect the results. Among patients with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder, those who had received antipsychotic treatment for more than 1 year were significantly less likely to have metabolic and cardiovascular disorders, compared with patients not taking antipsychotic medication. This association may be related to “greater medical vigilance” and “should not be taken as evidence that antipsychotics are free from cardiometabolic adverse effects,” the authors noted.

The study was supported by a research grant from Tourettes Action. In addition, authors reported support from the Swedish Research Council and a Karolinska Institutet PhD stipend. Two authors disclosed personal fees from publishers, and one author disclosed grants and other funding from Shire.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brander G et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4279.

Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorder are associated with a “substantial risk” of metabolic and cardiovascular disorders such as obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and circulatory system diseases, according to a study published online Jan. 14 in JAMA Neurology.

The movement disorders are associated with cardiometabolic problems “even after taking into account a number of covariates and shared familial confounders and excluding relevant psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. “The results highlight the importance of carefully monitoring cardiometabolic health in patients with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder across the lifespan, particularly in those with comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

Gustaf Brander, a researcher in the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and his colleagues conducted a longitudinal population-based cohort study of individuals living in Sweden between Jan. 1, 1973, and Dec. 31, 2013. The researchers assessed outcomes for patients with previously validated diagnoses of Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder in the Swedish National Patient Register. Main outcomes included obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, T2DM, and cardiovascular diseases, including ischemic heart diseases, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular diseases, transient ischemic attack, and arteriosclerosis. In addition, the researchers identified families with full siblings discordant for Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder.

Of the more than 14 million individuals in the cohort, 7,804 (76.4% male; median age at first diagnosis, 13.3 years) had a diagnosis of Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder in specialist care. Furthermore, the cohort included 5,141 families with full siblings who were discordant for these disorders.

Individuals with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder had a higher risk for any metabolic or cardiovascular disorder, compared with the general population (hazard ratio adjusted by sex and birth year [aHR], 1.99) and sibling controls (aHR, 1.37). Specifically, individuals with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder had higher risks for obesity (aHR, 2.76), T2DM(aHR, 1.67), and circulatory system diseases (aHR, 1.76).

The increased risk of any cardiometabolic disorder was significantly greater for males than it was for females (aHRs, 2.13 vs. 1.79), as was the risk of obesity (aHRs, 3.24 vs. 1.97).

The increased risk for cardiometabolic disorders in this patient population was evident by age 8 years. Exclusion of those patients with comorbid ADHD reduced but did not eliminate the risk (aHR, 1.52). The exclusion of other comorbidities did not significantly affect the results. Among patients with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder, those who had received antipsychotic treatment for more than 1 year were significantly less likely to have metabolic and cardiovascular disorders, compared with patients not taking antipsychotic medication. This association may be related to “greater medical vigilance” and “should not be taken as evidence that antipsychotics are free from cardiometabolic adverse effects,” the authors noted.

The study was supported by a research grant from Tourettes Action. In addition, authors reported support from the Swedish Research Council and a Karolinska Institutet PhD stipend. Two authors disclosed personal fees from publishers, and one author disclosed grants and other funding from Shire.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brander G et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4279.

Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorder are associated with a “substantial risk” of metabolic and cardiovascular disorders such as obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and circulatory system diseases, according to a study published online Jan. 14 in JAMA Neurology.

The movement disorders are associated with cardiometabolic problems “even after taking into account a number of covariates and shared familial confounders and excluding relevant psychiatric comorbidities,” the researchers wrote. “The results highlight the importance of carefully monitoring cardiometabolic health in patients with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder across the lifespan, particularly in those with comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

Gustaf Brander, a researcher in the department of clinical neuroscience at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and his colleagues conducted a longitudinal population-based cohort study of individuals living in Sweden between Jan. 1, 1973, and Dec. 31, 2013. The researchers assessed outcomes for patients with previously validated diagnoses of Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder in the Swedish National Patient Register. Main outcomes included obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, T2DM, and cardiovascular diseases, including ischemic heart diseases, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular diseases, transient ischemic attack, and arteriosclerosis. In addition, the researchers identified families with full siblings discordant for Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder.

Of the more than 14 million individuals in the cohort, 7,804 (76.4% male; median age at first diagnosis, 13.3 years) had a diagnosis of Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder in specialist care. Furthermore, the cohort included 5,141 families with full siblings who were discordant for these disorders.

Individuals with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder had a higher risk for any metabolic or cardiovascular disorder, compared with the general population (hazard ratio adjusted by sex and birth year [aHR], 1.99) and sibling controls (aHR, 1.37). Specifically, individuals with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder had higher risks for obesity (aHR, 2.76), T2DM(aHR, 1.67), and circulatory system diseases (aHR, 1.76).

The increased risk of any cardiometabolic disorder was significantly greater for males than it was for females (aHRs, 2.13 vs. 1.79), as was the risk of obesity (aHRs, 3.24 vs. 1.97).

The increased risk for cardiometabolic disorders in this patient population was evident by age 8 years. Exclusion of those patients with comorbid ADHD reduced but did not eliminate the risk (aHR, 1.52). The exclusion of other comorbidities did not significantly affect the results. Among patients with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder, those who had received antipsychotic treatment for more than 1 year were significantly less likely to have metabolic and cardiovascular disorders, compared with patients not taking antipsychotic medication. This association may be related to “greater medical vigilance” and “should not be taken as evidence that antipsychotics are free from cardiometabolic adverse effects,” the authors noted.

The study was supported by a research grant from Tourettes Action. In addition, authors reported support from the Swedish Research Council and a Karolinska Institutet PhD stipend. Two authors disclosed personal fees from publishers, and one author disclosed grants and other funding from Shire.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brander G et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jan 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.4279.

LOS ANGELES – Mounting evidence suggests that the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors helps prevent heart failure.

They also may play a role in the treatment of patients with known heart failure (HF), but further studies are required to prove definite treatment benefit.

“These trials enrolled a minority of patients with known heart failure, and, in those subgroups, the drugs seems to reduce the risk for hospitalization, opening the possibility of treatment benefit,” Javed Butler, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “But there were not enough patients to conclude this. If you are treating diabetes with these agents in patients with heart failure, more power to you. But don’t think you are treating heart failure per se until the results of the dedicated heart failure trials come out.”

Good glycemic control has not been shown to affect heart failure outcomes per se, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

“People seem to mix the concepts of prevention and treatment together,” he said. “We have now very good evidence across all trials with SGLT-2 inhibitors for prevention of heart failure. But for treatment, we need more data despite favorable early signals.

“Also, these trials include most patients with ischemic heart disease, but we don’t have data on nonischemic etiology for the development of heart failure from these trials,” Dr. Butler added.

The best available data from clinical trials suggest that patients with American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association heart failure classification stages A and B benefit the most from aggressive treatment to prevent HF.

“Either they have diseases like high blood pressure or diabetes, but their hearts are normal, or, perhaps, their hearts are abnormal, and they develop left ventricular hypertrophy or atrial fibrillation,” he said. “However, if someone is stage C – manifest heart failure – or stage D – advanced heart failure – we need further data on novel therapies to improve their outcomes.”

Dr. Butler emphasized that not all heart failure is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease. In fact, the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study showed that the incidence of heart failure increased progressively across age groups, both for those with and without a preceding vascular event (P = .03 and P less than .001, respectively; Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 May;16[5]:526-34). “There’s a whole other world of nonischemic heart failure that we also need to worry about,” he said. “There is a lot of microvascular endothelial dysfunction.”

The combination of heart failure and diabetes is especially lethal. “If you put them together, you’re looking at about a 10-fold higher risk of mortality, which is a horrible prognosis,” Dr. Butler said. “That means that we need to think about prevention and treatment separately.”

Data from the SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS trials show there is no protective effect of dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors when it comes to hospitalization for heart failure.

“The other classes of drugs either increase the risk, or we don’t have very good data,” Dr. Butler said. “So far, across the spectrum of therapies for diabetes, the effect on heart failure is neutral and perhaps confers some risk.”

SGLT-2 inhibitors convey a different story.

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial, one inclusion criterion was established cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the form of a prior MI, coronary artery disease, stroke, unstable angina, or occlusive peripheral artery disease, but not heart failure alone (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26; 373[22]:2117-28). “This was not a heart failure study, so we don’t know what their New York Heart Association class was, or the details of their baseline HF treatment in the minority of patients who were enrolled who had a history of HF,” Dr. Butler cautioned.

However, the trial found that empagliflozin conferred an overall cardiovascular death risk reduction of 38%, compared with placebo. When the researchers assessed the impact of treatment on all modes of cardiovascular death, they found that death from heart failure benefited the most (hazard ratio, 0.32; P = .0008), while sudden death benefited as well. Empagliflozin also had a significant impact on reduced hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo (HR, 0.65).

“This is a large enough cohort that you should feel comfortable that this drug is preventing heart failure in those with HF at baseline,” said Dr. Butler, who was not involved with the study. “We can have a debate about whether this is a treatment for heart failure or not, but for prevention of heart failure, I feel comfortable that these drugs do that.”

A subsequent study of canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes showed the same result (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17; 377[7]:644-57). It reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 33% (HR, 0.67).

Then came the CVD-REAL study, which found low rates of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death in new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. More recently, DECLARE-TIMI 58 yielded similar results.

“One of the criticisms of these findings is that heart failure characteristics were not well phenotyped in these studies,” Dr. Butler said. “I say it really does not matter. Heart failure hospitalizations are associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of whether the hospitalization occurred in patients without heart failure or in a patient with previously diagnosed heart failure, or whether the patient has reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

“Framingham and other classic studies show us that 5-year mortality for heart failure is about 50%,” he noted. “If you can prevent a disease that has a 5-year mortality of 50%, doesn’t that sound like a really good deal?”

A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmstead County, Minn., during 2000-2010 found that the mortality was 20.2% at 1 year after diagnosis, and 52.6% at 5 years after diagnosis. The data include new-onset HF in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Specifically, new-onset HF hospitalization was associated with a 1-year post discharge mortality of 21.1% (JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175[6]:996-1004). “We cannot ignore prevention of heart failure,” Dr. Butler said. “Also, for treatment, once you get hospitalized for heart failure, the fundamental natural history of the disease changes. There is a 30% cumulative incremental death risk between the second and third hospitalizations.”

Dr. Butler concluded his presentation by noting that five randomized, controlled trials evaluating SGLT-2 inhibitors in HF have been launched, and should help elucidate any effects the drugs may have in treating the condition. They include EMPEROR-Preserved (NCT03057951), EMPEROR-Reduced (NCT03057977), Dapa-HF (NCT03036124), and SOLOIST-WHF (NCT03521934) and DELIVER (NCT03619213).

Dr. Butler disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the European Union, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also been a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca, which sponsored the EMPA-REG, CANVAS, and DECLARE TIMI 58 trials.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Mounting evidence suggests that the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors helps prevent heart failure.

They also may play a role in the treatment of patients with known heart failure (HF), but further studies are required to prove definite treatment benefit.

“These trials enrolled a minority of patients with known heart failure, and, in those subgroups, the drugs seems to reduce the risk for hospitalization, opening the possibility of treatment benefit,” Javed Butler, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “But there were not enough patients to conclude this. If you are treating diabetes with these agents in patients with heart failure, more power to you. But don’t think you are treating heart failure per se until the results of the dedicated heart failure trials come out.”

Good glycemic control has not been shown to affect heart failure outcomes per se, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

“People seem to mix the concepts of prevention and treatment together,” he said. “We have now very good evidence across all trials with SGLT-2 inhibitors for prevention of heart failure. But for treatment, we need more data despite favorable early signals.

“Also, these trials include most patients with ischemic heart disease, but we don’t have data on nonischemic etiology for the development of heart failure from these trials,” Dr. Butler added.

The best available data from clinical trials suggest that patients with American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association heart failure classification stages A and B benefit the most from aggressive treatment to prevent HF.

“Either they have diseases like high blood pressure or diabetes, but their hearts are normal, or, perhaps, their hearts are abnormal, and they develop left ventricular hypertrophy or atrial fibrillation,” he said. “However, if someone is stage C – manifest heart failure – or stage D – advanced heart failure – we need further data on novel therapies to improve their outcomes.”

Dr. Butler emphasized that not all heart failure is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease. In fact, the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study showed that the incidence of heart failure increased progressively across age groups, both for those with and without a preceding vascular event (P = .03 and P less than .001, respectively; Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 May;16[5]:526-34). “There’s a whole other world of nonischemic heart failure that we also need to worry about,” he said. “There is a lot of microvascular endothelial dysfunction.”

The combination of heart failure and diabetes is especially lethal. “If you put them together, you’re looking at about a 10-fold higher risk of mortality, which is a horrible prognosis,” Dr. Butler said. “That means that we need to think about prevention and treatment separately.”

Data from the SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS trials show there is no protective effect of dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors when it comes to hospitalization for heart failure.

“The other classes of drugs either increase the risk, or we don’t have very good data,” Dr. Butler said. “So far, across the spectrum of therapies for diabetes, the effect on heart failure is neutral and perhaps confers some risk.”

SGLT-2 inhibitors convey a different story.

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial, one inclusion criterion was established cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the form of a prior MI, coronary artery disease, stroke, unstable angina, or occlusive peripheral artery disease, but not heart failure alone (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26; 373[22]:2117-28). “This was not a heart failure study, so we don’t know what their New York Heart Association class was, or the details of their baseline HF treatment in the minority of patients who were enrolled who had a history of HF,” Dr. Butler cautioned.

However, the trial found that empagliflozin conferred an overall cardiovascular death risk reduction of 38%, compared with placebo. When the researchers assessed the impact of treatment on all modes of cardiovascular death, they found that death from heart failure benefited the most (hazard ratio, 0.32; P = .0008), while sudden death benefited as well. Empagliflozin also had a significant impact on reduced hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo (HR, 0.65).

“This is a large enough cohort that you should feel comfortable that this drug is preventing heart failure in those with HF at baseline,” said Dr. Butler, who was not involved with the study. “We can have a debate about whether this is a treatment for heart failure or not, but for prevention of heart failure, I feel comfortable that these drugs do that.”

A subsequent study of canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes showed the same result (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17; 377[7]:644-57). It reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 33% (HR, 0.67).

Then came the CVD-REAL study, which found low rates of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death in new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. More recently, DECLARE-TIMI 58 yielded similar results.

“One of the criticisms of these findings is that heart failure characteristics were not well phenotyped in these studies,” Dr. Butler said. “I say it really does not matter. Heart failure hospitalizations are associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of whether the hospitalization occurred in patients without heart failure or in a patient with previously diagnosed heart failure, or whether the patient has reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

“Framingham and other classic studies show us that 5-year mortality for heart failure is about 50%,” he noted. “If you can prevent a disease that has a 5-year mortality of 50%, doesn’t that sound like a really good deal?”

A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmstead County, Minn., during 2000-2010 found that the mortality was 20.2% at 1 year after diagnosis, and 52.6% at 5 years after diagnosis. The data include new-onset HF in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Specifically, new-onset HF hospitalization was associated with a 1-year post discharge mortality of 21.1% (JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175[6]:996-1004). “We cannot ignore prevention of heart failure,” Dr. Butler said. “Also, for treatment, once you get hospitalized for heart failure, the fundamental natural history of the disease changes. There is a 30% cumulative incremental death risk between the second and third hospitalizations.”

Dr. Butler concluded his presentation by noting that five randomized, controlled trials evaluating SGLT-2 inhibitors in HF have been launched, and should help elucidate any effects the drugs may have in treating the condition. They include EMPEROR-Preserved (NCT03057951), EMPEROR-Reduced (NCT03057977), Dapa-HF (NCT03036124), and SOLOIST-WHF (NCT03521934) and DELIVER (NCT03619213).

Dr. Butler disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the European Union, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also been a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca, which sponsored the EMPA-REG, CANVAS, and DECLARE TIMI 58 trials.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Mounting evidence suggests that the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors helps prevent heart failure.

They also may play a role in the treatment of patients with known heart failure (HF), but further studies are required to prove definite treatment benefit.

“These trials enrolled a minority of patients with known heart failure, and, in those subgroups, the drugs seems to reduce the risk for hospitalization, opening the possibility of treatment benefit,” Javed Butler, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “But there were not enough patients to conclude this. If you are treating diabetes with these agents in patients with heart failure, more power to you. But don’t think you are treating heart failure per se until the results of the dedicated heart failure trials come out.”

Good glycemic control has not been shown to affect heart failure outcomes per se, said Dr. Butler, professor and chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.

“People seem to mix the concepts of prevention and treatment together,” he said. “We have now very good evidence across all trials with SGLT-2 inhibitors for prevention of heart failure. But for treatment, we need more data despite favorable early signals.

“Also, these trials include most patients with ischemic heart disease, but we don’t have data on nonischemic etiology for the development of heart failure from these trials,” Dr. Butler added.

The best available data from clinical trials suggest that patients with American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association heart failure classification stages A and B benefit the most from aggressive treatment to prevent HF.

“Either they have diseases like high blood pressure or diabetes, but their hearts are normal, or, perhaps, their hearts are abnormal, and they develop left ventricular hypertrophy or atrial fibrillation,” he said. “However, if someone is stage C – manifest heart failure – or stage D – advanced heart failure – we need further data on novel therapies to improve their outcomes.”

Dr. Butler emphasized that not all heart failure is associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease. In fact, the Health, Aging, and Body Composition Study showed that the incidence of heart failure increased progressively across age groups, both for those with and without a preceding vascular event (P = .03 and P less than .001, respectively; Eur J Heart Fail. 2014 May;16[5]:526-34). “There’s a whole other world of nonischemic heart failure that we also need to worry about,” he said. “There is a lot of microvascular endothelial dysfunction.”

The combination of heart failure and diabetes is especially lethal. “If you put them together, you’re looking at about a 10-fold higher risk of mortality, which is a horrible prognosis,” Dr. Butler said. “That means that we need to think about prevention and treatment separately.”

Data from the SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS trials show there is no protective effect of dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors when it comes to hospitalization for heart failure.

“The other classes of drugs either increase the risk, or we don’t have very good data,” Dr. Butler said. “So far, across the spectrum of therapies for diabetes, the effect on heart failure is neutral and perhaps confers some risk.”

SGLT-2 inhibitors convey a different story.

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial, one inclusion criterion was established cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the form of a prior MI, coronary artery disease, stroke, unstable angina, or occlusive peripheral artery disease, but not heart failure alone (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26; 373[22]:2117-28). “This was not a heart failure study, so we don’t know what their New York Heart Association class was, or the details of their baseline HF treatment in the minority of patients who were enrolled who had a history of HF,” Dr. Butler cautioned.

However, the trial found that empagliflozin conferred an overall cardiovascular death risk reduction of 38%, compared with placebo. When the researchers assessed the impact of treatment on all modes of cardiovascular death, they found that death from heart failure benefited the most (hazard ratio, 0.32; P = .0008), while sudden death benefited as well. Empagliflozin also had a significant impact on reduced hospitalization for heart failure, compared with placebo (HR, 0.65).

“This is a large enough cohort that you should feel comfortable that this drug is preventing heart failure in those with HF at baseline,” said Dr. Butler, who was not involved with the study. “We can have a debate about whether this is a treatment for heart failure or not, but for prevention of heart failure, I feel comfortable that these drugs do that.”

A subsequent study of canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes showed the same result (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17; 377[7]:644-57). It reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 33% (HR, 0.67).

Then came the CVD-REAL study, which found low rates of hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause death in new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors. More recently, DECLARE-TIMI 58 yielded similar results.

“One of the criticisms of these findings is that heart failure characteristics were not well phenotyped in these studies,” Dr. Butler said. “I say it really does not matter. Heart failure hospitalizations are associated with a poor prognosis irrespective of whether the hospitalization occurred in patients without heart failure or in a patient with previously diagnosed heart failure, or whether the patient has reduced or preserved ejection fraction.

“Framingham and other classic studies show us that 5-year mortality for heart failure is about 50%,” he noted. “If you can prevent a disease that has a 5-year mortality of 50%, doesn’t that sound like a really good deal?”

A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmstead County, Minn., during 2000-2010 found that the mortality was 20.2% at 1 year after diagnosis, and 52.6% at 5 years after diagnosis. The data include new-onset HF in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Specifically, new-onset HF hospitalization was associated with a 1-year post discharge mortality of 21.1% (JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175[6]:996-1004). “We cannot ignore prevention of heart failure,” Dr. Butler said. “Also, for treatment, once you get hospitalized for heart failure, the fundamental natural history of the disease changes. There is a 30% cumulative incremental death risk between the second and third hospitalizations.”

Dr. Butler concluded his presentation by noting that five randomized, controlled trials evaluating SGLT-2 inhibitors in HF have been launched, and should help elucidate any effects the drugs may have in treating the condition. They include EMPEROR-Preserved (NCT03057951), EMPEROR-Reduced (NCT03057977), Dapa-HF (NCT03036124), and SOLOIST-WHF (NCT03521934) and DELIVER (NCT03619213).

Dr. Butler disclosed that he has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the European Union, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He has also been a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and AstraZeneca, which sponsored the EMPA-REG, CANVAS, and DECLARE TIMI 58 trials.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In some individuals, reduced degradation of insulin by the liver is the cause of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

That’s a hypothesis that Richard N. Bergman, PhD, and his colleagues are testing in his lab at the Sports Spectacular Diabetes and Obesity Wellness and Research Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

“More than 50% of insulin secreted into the portal vein is degraded by the liver and never enters the systemic circulation,” Dr. Bergman said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “We have found that if you make an animal insulin resistant with a high fat diet, they degrade less of the insulin. Why is that? They deliver a higher fraction of the insulin into the systemic circulation. One of the answers is that the liver is a gateway for insulin delivery to the systemic circulation.” In fact, when he and his colleagues tested a population of normal dogs, they found wide variability in the ability of the liver to take up and degrade insulin (Diabetes. 2018 67[8]:1495-503).

“It ranged from 20% to 70%; I didn’t believe these data,” said Dr. Bergman, who is also chair in diabetes research at Cedars-Sinai. “We had to redo the study and the same thing was true. There’s a wide variation in what fraction of insulin that enters the liver is degraded. That led to the idea that this could be true in humans.”

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In some individuals, reduced degradation of insulin by the liver is the cause of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

That’s a hypothesis that Richard N. Bergman, PhD, and his colleagues are testing in his lab at the Sports Spectacular Diabetes and Obesity Wellness and Research Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

“More than 50% of insulin secreted into the portal vein is degraded by the liver and never enters the systemic circulation,” Dr. Bergman said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “We have found that if you make an animal insulin resistant with a high fat diet, they degrade less of the insulin. Why is that? They deliver a higher fraction of the insulin into the systemic circulation. One of the answers is that the liver is a gateway for insulin delivery to the systemic circulation.” In fact, when he and his colleagues tested a population of normal dogs, they found wide variability in the ability of the liver to take up and degrade insulin (Diabetes. 2018 67[8]:1495-503).

“It ranged from 20% to 70%; I didn’t believe these data,” said Dr. Bergman, who is also chair in diabetes research at Cedars-Sinai. “We had to redo the study and the same thing was true. There’s a wide variation in what fraction of insulin that enters the liver is degraded. That led to the idea that this could be true in humans.”

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – In some individuals, reduced degradation of insulin by the liver is the cause of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

That’s a hypothesis that Richard N. Bergman, PhD, and his colleagues are testing in his lab at the Sports Spectacular Diabetes and Obesity Wellness and Research Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

“More than 50% of insulin secreted into the portal vein is degraded by the liver and never enters the systemic circulation,” Dr. Bergman said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “We have found that if you make an animal insulin resistant with a high fat diet, they degrade less of the insulin. Why is that? They deliver a higher fraction of the insulin into the systemic circulation. One of the answers is that the liver is a gateway for insulin delivery to the systemic circulation.” In fact, when he and his colleagues tested a population of normal dogs, they found wide variability in the ability of the liver to take up and degrade insulin (Diabetes. 2018 67[8]:1495-503).

“It ranged from 20% to 70%; I didn’t believe these data,” said Dr. Bergman, who is also chair in diabetes research at Cedars-Sinai. “We had to redo the study and the same thing was true. There’s a wide variation in what fraction of insulin that enters the liver is degraded. That led to the idea that this could be true in humans.”

[email protected]