Diabetes

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Protein intake within 4 hours before exercise may shorten hypoglycemic episodes during moderate physical activity in teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODOLOGY:

• For teenagers with T1D, regular physical activity improves blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, and other health measures, but the risk for hypoglycemia is a major barrier.
• In a secondary analysis of the FLEX study, researchers estimated the association between protein intake within 4 hours before moderate to vigorous physical activity bouts and glycemia during and following physical exercise.
• The final sample size included 447 bouts from 112 adolescents with T1D (median age, 14.5 years; 53.6% female) whose physical activity records and 24-hour dietary recall data were collected at baseline and 6 months.
• Data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was a selection criterium and used to calculate the following measures of glycemia:
• Percentage of time above range (TAR; > 180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time below range (TBR; < 70 mg/dL)

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a small reduction in TBR during physical activity in patients who consumed 10-19.9 g (−4.41%; P = .04) and more than 20 g (−4.83%; P = .02) of protein before moderate to vigorous exercise compared with those who consumed less than 10 g of protein.
• Similarly, protein intakes of 0.125-0.249 g/kg and ≥ 0.25 g/kg were associated with −5.38% (P = .01) and −4.32% (P = .03) reductions in TBR, respectively, compared with less than 0.125 g/kg of protein intake.
• However, the pre-exercise protein consumption was not associated with TAR or TIR during exercise or with any glycemic measurements (TAR, TIR, and TBR) after exercise.
• The benefits of protein intake on glycemia were observed only during moderate-intensity bouts of physical activity, which may reflect differing glycemic trajectories in more high-intensity activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Consumption of at least 10 g or 0.125 g/kg bodyweight was associated with reduced TBR during moderate to vigorous physical activity, indicating improved safety for adolescents with T1D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Franklin R. Muntis, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

Self-reported measures of dietary intake were prone to underreporting, while moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was often overreported among adolescents. Approximately, 26% of identified bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity were missing adequate CGM data, excluding participants from the analysis, which may have caused selection bias. There was no time-stamped insulin dosing data available.

DISCLOSURES:

The FLEX study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Protein intake within 4 hours before exercise may shorten hypoglycemic episodes during moderate physical activity in teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODOLOGY:

• For teenagers with T1D, regular physical activity improves blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, and other health measures, but the risk for hypoglycemia is a major barrier.
• In a secondary analysis of the FLEX study, researchers estimated the association between protein intake within 4 hours before moderate to vigorous physical activity bouts and glycemia during and following physical exercise.
• The final sample size included 447 bouts from 112 adolescents with T1D (median age, 14.5 years; 53.6% female) whose physical activity records and 24-hour dietary recall data were collected at baseline and 6 months.
• Data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was a selection criterium and used to calculate the following measures of glycemia:
• Percentage of time above range (TAR; > 180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time below range (TBR; < 70 mg/dL)

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a small reduction in TBR during physical activity in patients who consumed 10-19.9 g (−4.41%; P = .04) and more than 20 g (−4.83%; P = .02) of protein before moderate to vigorous exercise compared with those who consumed less than 10 g of protein.
• Similarly, protein intakes of 0.125-0.249 g/kg and ≥ 0.25 g/kg were associated with −5.38% (P = .01) and −4.32% (P = .03) reductions in TBR, respectively, compared with less than 0.125 g/kg of protein intake.
• However, the pre-exercise protein consumption was not associated with TAR or TIR during exercise or with any glycemic measurements (TAR, TIR, and TBR) after exercise.
• The benefits of protein intake on glycemia were observed only during moderate-intensity bouts of physical activity, which may reflect differing glycemic trajectories in more high-intensity activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Consumption of at least 10 g or 0.125 g/kg bodyweight was associated with reduced TBR during moderate to vigorous physical activity, indicating improved safety for adolescents with T1D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Franklin R. Muntis, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

Self-reported measures of dietary intake were prone to underreporting, while moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was often overreported among adolescents. Approximately, 26% of identified bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity were missing adequate CGM data, excluding participants from the analysis, which may have caused selection bias. There was no time-stamped insulin dosing data available.

DISCLOSURES:

The FLEX study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Protein intake within 4 hours before exercise may shorten hypoglycemic episodes during moderate physical activity in teens with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODOLOGY:

• For teenagers with T1D, regular physical activity improves blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, and other health measures, but the risk for hypoglycemia is a major barrier.
• In a secondary analysis of the FLEX study, researchers estimated the association between protein intake within 4 hours before moderate to vigorous physical activity bouts and glycemia during and following physical exercise.
• The final sample size included 447 bouts from 112 adolescents with T1D (median age, 14.5 years; 53.6% female) whose physical activity records and 24-hour dietary recall data were collected at baseline and 6 months.
• Data on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was a selection criterium and used to calculate the following measures of glycemia:
• Percentage of time above range (TAR; > 180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time in range (TIR; 70-180 mg/dL)
• Percentage of time below range (TBR; < 70 mg/dL)

TAKEAWAY:

• There was a small reduction in TBR during physical activity in patients who consumed 10-19.9 g (−4.41%; P = .04) and more than 20 g (−4.83%; P = .02) of protein before moderate to vigorous exercise compared with those who consumed less than 10 g of protein.
• Similarly, protein intakes of 0.125-0.249 g/kg and ≥ 0.25 g/kg were associated with −5.38% (P = .01) and −4.32% (P = .03) reductions in TBR, respectively, compared with less than 0.125 g/kg of protein intake.
• However, the pre-exercise protein consumption was not associated with TAR or TIR during exercise or with any glycemic measurements (TAR, TIR, and TBR) after exercise.
• The benefits of protein intake on glycemia were observed only during moderate-intensity bouts of physical activity, which may reflect differing glycemic trajectories in more high-intensity activity.

IN PRACTICE:

“Consumption of at least 10 g or 0.125 g/kg bodyweight was associated with reduced TBR during moderate to vigorous physical activity, indicating improved safety for adolescents with T1D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Franklin R. Muntis, PhD, Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

Self-reported measures of dietary intake were prone to underreporting, while moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was often overreported among adolescents. Approximately, 26% of identified bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity were missing adequate CGM data, excluding participants from the analysis, which may have caused selection bias. There was no time-stamped insulin dosing data available.

DISCLOSURES:

The FLEX study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.

He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.

What medication adjustments would you recommend?

A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime

B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart

C. Begin semaglutide

D. Begin metformin

E. No changes

I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.¹

In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.

I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.

I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.^2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.

The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.⁴ Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.


Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.

2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.

3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.

4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.

An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.

He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.

What medication adjustments would you recommend?

A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime

B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart

C. Begin semaglutide

D. Begin metformin

E. No changes

I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.¹

In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.

I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.

I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.^2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.

The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.⁴ Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.


Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.

2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.

3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.

4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.

An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.

He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.

What medication adjustments would you recommend?

A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime

B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart

C. Begin semaglutide

D. Begin metformin

E. No changes

I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.¹

In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.

I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.

I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.^2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.

The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.⁴ Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.


Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.

2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.

3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.

4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.

Hypoglycemia and weight gain are well-known adverse effects that can result from insulin and sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).^1,2 Insulin and sulfonylurea medications can cause additional weight gain in patients who are overweight or obese, which can increase the burden of diabetes therapy with added medications, raise the risk of hypoglycemia complications, and raise atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors.³ Although increasing the insulin or sulfonylurea dose is an option health care practitioners or pharmacists have, this approach can increase the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in older adults, such as the veteran population, which could lead to complications, such as falls.²

Previous studies focusing on hypoglycemic events in patients with T2DM showed that glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist monotherapy has a low incidence of a hypoglycemic events. However, when a GLP-1 agonist is combined with insulin or sulfonylureas, patients have an increased chance of a hypoglycemic event.^3-8 According to the prescribing information for semaglutide, 1.6% to 3.8% of patients on a GLP-1 agonist monotherapy reported a documented symptomatic hypoglycemic event (blood glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL), based on semaglutide dosing. ⁹ Patients on combination therapy of a GLP-1 agonist and basal insulin and a GLP-1 agonist and a sulfonylurea reported a documented symptomatic hypoglycemic event ranging from 16.7% to 29.8% and 17.3% to 24.4%, respectively.⁹ The incidences of hypoglycemia thus dramatically increase with combination therapy of a GLP-1 agonist plus insulin or a sulfonylurea.

When adding a GLP-1 agonist to insulin or a sulfonylurea, clinicians must be mindful of the increased risk of hypoglycemia. Per the warnings and precautions in the prescribing information of GLP-1 agonists, concomitant use with insulin or a sulfonylurea may increase the risk of hypoglycemia, and reducing the dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea may be necessary.^9-11 According to the American College of Cardiology guidelines, when starting a GLP-1 agonist, the insulin dose should be decreased by about 20% in patients with a well-controlled hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c).¹²

This study aimed to determine the percentage of patients who required dose reductions or discontinuations of insulin and sulfonylureas with the addition of a GLP-1 agonist. Understanding necessary dose reductions or discontinuations of these concomitant diabetes agents can assist pharmacists in preventing hypoglycemia and minimizing weight gain.

Methods

This clinical review was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients prescribed a GLP-1 agonist while on insulin or a sulfonylurea between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) in Pennsylvania and managed in a pharmacist-led patient aligned care team (PACT) clinic. It was determined by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development that an institutional review board or other review committee approval was not needed for this nonresearch Veterans Health Administration quality assurance and improvement project. Patients aged ≥ 18 years were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were not on insulin or a sulfonylurea when starting a GLP-1 agonist, started a GLP-1 agonist outside of the retrospective chart review dates, or were prescribed a GLP-1 agonist by anyone other than a pharmacist in their PACT clinic. This included if a GLP-1 agonist was prescribed by a primary care physician, endocrinologist, or someone outside the VA system.

The primary study outcomes were to determine the percentage of patients with a dose reduction of insulin or sulfonylurea and discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea at intervals of 0 (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in HbA_1c and body weight measured at the same intervals of 0 (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months.
Data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and stored in a locked spreadsheet. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Patient data included the number of patients on insulin or a sulfonylurea when initiating a GLP-1 agonist, the percentage of patients started on a certain GLP-1 agonist (dulaglutide, liraglutide, exenatide, and semaglutide), and the percentage of patients with a baseline HbA_1c of < 8%, 8% to 10%, and > 10%. The GLP-1 agonist formulary was adjusted during the time of this retrospective chart review. Patients who were not on semaglutide were switched over if they were on another GLP-1 agonist as semaglutide became the preferred GLP-1 agonist.

Patients were considered to have a dose reduction or discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea if the dose or medication they were on decreased or was discontinued permanently within 12 months of starting a GLP-1 agonist. For example, if a patient who was administering 10 units of insulin daily was decreased to 8 but later increased back to 10, this was not counted as a dose reduction. If a patient discontinued insulin or a sulfonylurea and then restarted it within 12 months of initiating a GLP-1 agonist, this was not counted as a discontinuation.

This retrospective review included 136 patients; 96 patients taking insulin and 54 taking a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist. Fourteen patients were on both. Criteria for use, which are clinical criteria to determine if a patient is eligible for the use of a given medication, are used within the VA. The inclusion criteria for a patient initiating a GLP-1 agonist is that the patient must have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease with the patient receiving metformin (unless unable to use metformin) and empagliflozin (unless unable to use empagliflozin).

The baseline mean age and weight for the patient population in this retrospective chart review was 70.7 years and 238.2 lb, respectively. Ninety-six patients (70.6%) were started on semaglutide, 27 (19.9%) on dulaglutide, 12 (8.8%) on liraglutide, and 1 (0.7%) on exenatide. The mean HbA_1c when patients initiated a GLP-1 agonist was 8.6%. When starting a GLP-1 agonist, 34 patients (25.0%) had an HbA_1c < 8%, 89 (65.4%) had an HbA_1c between 8% to 10%, and 13 (9.6%) had an HbA_1c > 10% (Table).

For the primary results, 25 patients (26.0%) had a dose reduction of insulin when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 55 patients (57.3%) had at least 1 insulin dose reduction within the year follow-up. Seven patients (13.0%) had a dose reduction of a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 16 patients (29.6%) had at least 1 dose reduction of a sulfonylurea within the year follow-up. Six patients (6.3%) discontinued insulin use when they initially started a GLP-1 agonist, and 14 patients (14.6%) discontinued insulin use within the year follow-up. Eleven patients (20.4%) discontinued sulfonylurea use when they initially started a GLP-1 agonist, and 21 patients (38.9%) discontinued sulfonylurea use within the year follow-up (Figure).

Fourteen patients were on both insulin and a sulfonylurea. Two patients (14.3%) had a dose reduction of insulin when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 5 (35.7%) had ≥ 1 insulin dose reduction within the year follow-up. Three patients (21.4%) had a dose reduction of a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 6 (42.9%) had ≥ 1 dose reduction of a sulfonylurea within the year follow-up. Seven patients (50.0%) discontinued sulfonylurea and 3 (21.4%) discontinued insulin at any time throughout the year. The majority of the discontinuations were at the initial start of GLP-1 agonist therapy.

The mean HbA_1c for patients on GLP-1 agonist was 8.6% at baseline, 8.0% at 0 to 3 months, 7.6% at 3 to 6 months, and 7.5% at 12 months. Patients experienced a mean HbA_1c reduction of 1.1%. The mean weight when a GLP-1 agonist was started was 238.2 lb, 236.0 lb at 0 to 3 months, 223.8 lb at 3 to 6 months, and 224.3 lb after 12 months. Study participants lost a mean weight of 13.9 lb while on a GLP-1 agonist.

Discussion

While this study did not examine why there were dose reductions or discontinuations, we can hypothesize that insulin or sulfonylureas were reduced or discontinued due to a myriad of reasons, such as prophylactic dosing per guidelines, patients having a hypoglycemic event, or pharmacists anticipating potential low blood glucose trends. Also, there could have been numerous reasons GLP-1 agonists were started in patients on insulin or a sulfonylurea, such as HbA_1c not being within goal range, cardiovascular benefits (reduce risk of stroke, heart attack, and death), weight loss, and renal protection, such as preventing albuminuria.^13,14

This retrospective chart review found a large proportion of patients had a dose reduction of insulin (57.3%) or sulfonylurea (29.6%). The percentage of patients with a dose reduction was potentially underestimated as patients were not counted if they discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea. Concomitant use of GLP-1 agonists with insulin or a sulfonylurea may increase the risk of hypoglycemia and reducing the dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea may be necessary.^9-11 The dose reductions in this study show that pharmacists within pharmacy-led PACT clinics monitor for or attempt to prevent hypoglycemia, which aligns with the prescribing information of GLP-1 agonists. While increasing the insulin or sulfonylurea dose is an option for patients, this approach can increase the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in an older population, like this one with a mean age > 70 years. The large proportions of patients with dose reductions or insulin and sulfonylurea discontinuations suggest that pharmacists may need to take a more cautious approach when initiating a GLP-1 agonist to prevent adverse health outcomes related to low blood sugar for older adults, such as falls and fractures.

Insulin was discontinued in 20.4% of patients and sulfonylurea was discontinued in 38.9% of patients within 12 months after starting a GLP-1 agonist. When a patient was on both insulin and a sulfonylurea, the percentage of patients who discontinued insulin (21.4%) or a sulfonylurea (50.0%) was higher compared with patients just on insulin (14.6%) or a sulfonylurea (38.9%) alone. Patients on both insulin and a sulfonylurea may need closer monitoring due to a higher incidence of discontinuations when these diabetes agents are administered in combination.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be considered when evaluating the results. This review was comprised of a mostly older, male population, which results in a low generalizability to organizations other than VA medical centers. In addition, this study only evaluated patients on a GLP-1 agonist followed in a pharmacist-led PACT clinic. This study excluded patients who were prescribed a GLP-1 agonist by an endocrinologist or a pharmacist at one of the community-based outpatient clinics affiliated with WBVAMC, or a pharmacist or clinician outside the VA. The sole focus of this study was patients in a pharmacist-led VAMC clinic. Not all patient data may have been included in the study. If a patient did not have an appointment at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months or did not obtain laboratory tests, HbA_1c and weights were not recorded. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and in-person appointments were potentially switched to phone or video appointments. There were many instances during this chart review where a weight was not recorded at each time interval. Also, this study did not consider any other diabetes medications the patient was taking. There were many instances where the patient was taking metformin and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. These medications along with diet could have affected the weight results as metformin is weight neutral and SGLT-2 inhibitors promote weight loss.¹⁵ Lastly, this study did not evaluate the amount of insulin reduced, only if there was a dose reduction or discontinuation of insulin and/or a sulfonylurea.

Conclusions

Dose reductions and a discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea with the addition of a GLP-1 agonist may be needed. Patients on both insulin and a sulfonylurea may need closer monitoring due to the higher incidences of discontinuations compared with patients on just 1 of these agents. Dose reductions or discontinuations of these diabetic agents can promote positive patient outcomes, such as preventing hypoglycemia, minimizing weight gain, increasing weight loss, and reducing HbA_1c levels.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Pennsylvania.

Hypoglycemia and weight gain are well-known adverse effects that can result from insulin and sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).^1,2 Insulin and sulfonylurea medications can cause additional weight gain in patients who are overweight or obese, which can increase the burden of diabetes therapy with added medications, raise the risk of hypoglycemia complications, and raise atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors.³ Although increasing the insulin or sulfonylurea dose is an option health care practitioners or pharmacists have, this approach can increase the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in older adults, such as the veteran population, which could lead to complications, such as falls.²

Previous studies focusing on hypoglycemic events in patients with T2DM showed that glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist monotherapy has a low incidence of a hypoglycemic events. However, when a GLP-1 agonist is combined with insulin or sulfonylureas, patients have an increased chance of a hypoglycemic event.^3-8 According to the prescribing information for semaglutide, 1.6% to 3.8% of patients on a GLP-1 agonist monotherapy reported a documented symptomatic hypoglycemic event (blood glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL), based on semaglutide dosing. ⁹ Patients on combination therapy of a GLP-1 agonist and basal insulin and a GLP-1 agonist and a sulfonylurea reported a documented symptomatic hypoglycemic event ranging from 16.7% to 29.8% and 17.3% to 24.4%, respectively.⁹ The incidences of hypoglycemia thus dramatically increase with combination therapy of a GLP-1 agonist plus insulin or a sulfonylurea.

When adding a GLP-1 agonist to insulin or a sulfonylurea, clinicians must be mindful of the increased risk of hypoglycemia. Per the warnings and precautions in the prescribing information of GLP-1 agonists, concomitant use with insulin or a sulfonylurea may increase the risk of hypoglycemia, and reducing the dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea may be necessary.^9-11 According to the American College of Cardiology guidelines, when starting a GLP-1 agonist, the insulin dose should be decreased by about 20% in patients with a well-controlled hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c).¹²

This study aimed to determine the percentage of patients who required dose reductions or discontinuations of insulin and sulfonylureas with the addition of a GLP-1 agonist. Understanding necessary dose reductions or discontinuations of these concomitant diabetes agents can assist pharmacists in preventing hypoglycemia and minimizing weight gain.

Methods

This clinical review was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients prescribed a GLP-1 agonist while on insulin or a sulfonylurea between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) in Pennsylvania and managed in a pharmacist-led patient aligned care team (PACT) clinic. It was determined by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development that an institutional review board or other review committee approval was not needed for this nonresearch Veterans Health Administration quality assurance and improvement project. Patients aged ≥ 18 years were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were not on insulin or a sulfonylurea when starting a GLP-1 agonist, started a GLP-1 agonist outside of the retrospective chart review dates, or were prescribed a GLP-1 agonist by anyone other than a pharmacist in their PACT clinic. This included if a GLP-1 agonist was prescribed by a primary care physician, endocrinologist, or someone outside the VA system.

The primary study outcomes were to determine the percentage of patients with a dose reduction of insulin or sulfonylurea and discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea at intervals of 0 (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in HbA_1c and body weight measured at the same intervals of 0 (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months.
Data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and stored in a locked spreadsheet. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Patient data included the number of patients on insulin or a sulfonylurea when initiating a GLP-1 agonist, the percentage of patients started on a certain GLP-1 agonist (dulaglutide, liraglutide, exenatide, and semaglutide), and the percentage of patients with a baseline HbA_1c of < 8%, 8% to 10%, and > 10%. The GLP-1 agonist formulary was adjusted during the time of this retrospective chart review. Patients who were not on semaglutide were switched over if they were on another GLP-1 agonist as semaglutide became the preferred GLP-1 agonist.

Patients were considered to have a dose reduction or discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea if the dose or medication they were on decreased or was discontinued permanently within 12 months of starting a GLP-1 agonist. For example, if a patient who was administering 10 units of insulin daily was decreased to 8 but later increased back to 10, this was not counted as a dose reduction. If a patient discontinued insulin or a sulfonylurea and then restarted it within 12 months of initiating a GLP-1 agonist, this was not counted as a discontinuation.

This retrospective review included 136 patients; 96 patients taking insulin and 54 taking a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist. Fourteen patients were on both. Criteria for use, which are clinical criteria to determine if a patient is eligible for the use of a given medication, are used within the VA. The inclusion criteria for a patient initiating a GLP-1 agonist is that the patient must have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease with the patient receiving metformin (unless unable to use metformin) and empagliflozin (unless unable to use empagliflozin).

The baseline mean age and weight for the patient population in this retrospective chart review was 70.7 years and 238.2 lb, respectively. Ninety-six patients (70.6%) were started on semaglutide, 27 (19.9%) on dulaglutide, 12 (8.8%) on liraglutide, and 1 (0.7%) on exenatide. The mean HbA_1c when patients initiated a GLP-1 agonist was 8.6%. When starting a GLP-1 agonist, 34 patients (25.0%) had an HbA_1c < 8%, 89 (65.4%) had an HbA_1c between 8% to 10%, and 13 (9.6%) had an HbA_1c > 10% (Table).

For the primary results, 25 patients (26.0%) had a dose reduction of insulin when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 55 patients (57.3%) had at least 1 insulin dose reduction within the year follow-up. Seven patients (13.0%) had a dose reduction of a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 16 patients (29.6%) had at least 1 dose reduction of a sulfonylurea within the year follow-up. Six patients (6.3%) discontinued insulin use when they initially started a GLP-1 agonist, and 14 patients (14.6%) discontinued insulin use within the year follow-up. Eleven patients (20.4%) discontinued sulfonylurea use when they initially started a GLP-1 agonist, and 21 patients (38.9%) discontinued sulfonylurea use within the year follow-up (Figure).

Fourteen patients were on both insulin and a sulfonylurea. Two patients (14.3%) had a dose reduction of insulin when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 5 (35.7%) had ≥ 1 insulin dose reduction within the year follow-up. Three patients (21.4%) had a dose reduction of a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 6 (42.9%) had ≥ 1 dose reduction of a sulfonylurea within the year follow-up. Seven patients (50.0%) discontinued sulfonylurea and 3 (21.4%) discontinued insulin at any time throughout the year. The majority of the discontinuations were at the initial start of GLP-1 agonist therapy.

The mean HbA_1c for patients on GLP-1 agonist was 8.6% at baseline, 8.0% at 0 to 3 months, 7.6% at 3 to 6 months, and 7.5% at 12 months. Patients experienced a mean HbA_1c reduction of 1.1%. The mean weight when a GLP-1 agonist was started was 238.2 lb, 236.0 lb at 0 to 3 months, 223.8 lb at 3 to 6 months, and 224.3 lb after 12 months. Study participants lost a mean weight of 13.9 lb while on a GLP-1 agonist.

Discussion

While this study did not examine why there were dose reductions or discontinuations, we can hypothesize that insulin or sulfonylureas were reduced or discontinued due to a myriad of reasons, such as prophylactic dosing per guidelines, patients having a hypoglycemic event, or pharmacists anticipating potential low blood glucose trends. Also, there could have been numerous reasons GLP-1 agonists were started in patients on insulin or a sulfonylurea, such as HbA_1c not being within goal range, cardiovascular benefits (reduce risk of stroke, heart attack, and death), weight loss, and renal protection, such as preventing albuminuria.^13,14

This retrospective chart review found a large proportion of patients had a dose reduction of insulin (57.3%) or sulfonylurea (29.6%). The percentage of patients with a dose reduction was potentially underestimated as patients were not counted if they discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea. Concomitant use of GLP-1 agonists with insulin or a sulfonylurea may increase the risk of hypoglycemia and reducing the dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea may be necessary.^9-11 The dose reductions in this study show that pharmacists within pharmacy-led PACT clinics monitor for or attempt to prevent hypoglycemia, which aligns with the prescribing information of GLP-1 agonists. While increasing the insulin or sulfonylurea dose is an option for patients, this approach can increase the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in an older population, like this one with a mean age > 70 years. The large proportions of patients with dose reductions or insulin and sulfonylurea discontinuations suggest that pharmacists may need to take a more cautious approach when initiating a GLP-1 agonist to prevent adverse health outcomes related to low blood sugar for older adults, such as falls and fractures.

Insulin was discontinued in 20.4% of patients and sulfonylurea was discontinued in 38.9% of patients within 12 months after starting a GLP-1 agonist. When a patient was on both insulin and a sulfonylurea, the percentage of patients who discontinued insulin (21.4%) or a sulfonylurea (50.0%) was higher compared with patients just on insulin (14.6%) or a sulfonylurea (38.9%) alone. Patients on both insulin and a sulfonylurea may need closer monitoring due to a higher incidence of discontinuations when these diabetes agents are administered in combination.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be considered when evaluating the results. This review was comprised of a mostly older, male population, which results in a low generalizability to organizations other than VA medical centers. In addition, this study only evaluated patients on a GLP-1 agonist followed in a pharmacist-led PACT clinic. This study excluded patients who were prescribed a GLP-1 agonist by an endocrinologist or a pharmacist at one of the community-based outpatient clinics affiliated with WBVAMC, or a pharmacist or clinician outside the VA. The sole focus of this study was patients in a pharmacist-led VAMC clinic. Not all patient data may have been included in the study. If a patient did not have an appointment at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months or did not obtain laboratory tests, HbA_1c and weights were not recorded. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and in-person appointments were potentially switched to phone or video appointments. There were many instances during this chart review where a weight was not recorded at each time interval. Also, this study did not consider any other diabetes medications the patient was taking. There were many instances where the patient was taking metformin and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. These medications along with diet could have affected the weight results as metformin is weight neutral and SGLT-2 inhibitors promote weight loss.¹⁵ Lastly, this study did not evaluate the amount of insulin reduced, only if there was a dose reduction or discontinuation of insulin and/or a sulfonylurea.

Conclusions

Dose reductions and a discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea with the addition of a GLP-1 agonist may be needed. Patients on both insulin and a sulfonylurea may need closer monitoring due to the higher incidences of discontinuations compared with patients on just 1 of these agents. Dose reductions or discontinuations of these diabetic agents can promote positive patient outcomes, such as preventing hypoglycemia, minimizing weight gain, increasing weight loss, and reducing HbA_1c levels.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Pennsylvania.

Hypoglycemia and weight gain are well-known adverse effects that can result from insulin and sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).^1,2 Insulin and sulfonylurea medications can cause additional weight gain in patients who are overweight or obese, which can increase the burden of diabetes therapy with added medications, raise the risk of hypoglycemia complications, and raise atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors.³ Although increasing the insulin or sulfonylurea dose is an option health care practitioners or pharmacists have, this approach can increase the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in older adults, such as the veteran population, which could lead to complications, such as falls.²

Previous studies focusing on hypoglycemic events in patients with T2DM showed that glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist monotherapy has a low incidence of a hypoglycemic events. However, when a GLP-1 agonist is combined with insulin or sulfonylureas, patients have an increased chance of a hypoglycemic event.^3-8 According to the prescribing information for semaglutide, 1.6% to 3.8% of patients on a GLP-1 agonist monotherapy reported a documented symptomatic hypoglycemic event (blood glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL), based on semaglutide dosing. ⁹ Patients on combination therapy of a GLP-1 agonist and basal insulin and a GLP-1 agonist and a sulfonylurea reported a documented symptomatic hypoglycemic event ranging from 16.7% to 29.8% and 17.3% to 24.4%, respectively.⁹ The incidences of hypoglycemia thus dramatically increase with combination therapy of a GLP-1 agonist plus insulin or a sulfonylurea.

When adding a GLP-1 agonist to insulin or a sulfonylurea, clinicians must be mindful of the increased risk of hypoglycemia. Per the warnings and precautions in the prescribing information of GLP-1 agonists, concomitant use with insulin or a sulfonylurea may increase the risk of hypoglycemia, and reducing the dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea may be necessary.^9-11 According to the American College of Cardiology guidelines, when starting a GLP-1 agonist, the insulin dose should be decreased by about 20% in patients with a well-controlled hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c).¹²

This study aimed to determine the percentage of patients who required dose reductions or discontinuations of insulin and sulfonylureas with the addition of a GLP-1 agonist. Understanding necessary dose reductions or discontinuations of these concomitant diabetes agents can assist pharmacists in preventing hypoglycemia and minimizing weight gain.

Methods

This clinical review was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients prescribed a GLP-1 agonist while on insulin or a sulfonylurea between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) in Pennsylvania and managed in a pharmacist-led patient aligned care team (PACT) clinic. It was determined by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development that an institutional review board or other review committee approval was not needed for this nonresearch Veterans Health Administration quality assurance and improvement project. Patients aged ≥ 18 years were included in this study. Patients were excluded if they were not on insulin or a sulfonylurea when starting a GLP-1 agonist, started a GLP-1 agonist outside of the retrospective chart review dates, or were prescribed a GLP-1 agonist by anyone other than a pharmacist in their PACT clinic. This included if a GLP-1 agonist was prescribed by a primary care physician, endocrinologist, or someone outside the VA system.

The primary study outcomes were to determine the percentage of patients with a dose reduction of insulin or sulfonylurea and discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea at intervals of 0 (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included changes in HbA_1c and body weight measured at the same intervals of 0 (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months.
Data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and stored in a locked spreadsheet. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Patient data included the number of patients on insulin or a sulfonylurea when initiating a GLP-1 agonist, the percentage of patients started on a certain GLP-1 agonist (dulaglutide, liraglutide, exenatide, and semaglutide), and the percentage of patients with a baseline HbA_1c of < 8%, 8% to 10%, and > 10%. The GLP-1 agonist formulary was adjusted during the time of this retrospective chart review. Patients who were not on semaglutide were switched over if they were on another GLP-1 agonist as semaglutide became the preferred GLP-1 agonist.

Patients were considered to have a dose reduction or discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea if the dose or medication they were on decreased or was discontinued permanently within 12 months of starting a GLP-1 agonist. For example, if a patient who was administering 10 units of insulin daily was decreased to 8 but later increased back to 10, this was not counted as a dose reduction. If a patient discontinued insulin or a sulfonylurea and then restarted it within 12 months of initiating a GLP-1 agonist, this was not counted as a discontinuation.

This retrospective review included 136 patients; 96 patients taking insulin and 54 taking a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist. Fourteen patients were on both. Criteria for use, which are clinical criteria to determine if a patient is eligible for the use of a given medication, are used within the VA. The inclusion criteria for a patient initiating a GLP-1 agonist is that the patient must have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease with the patient receiving metformin (unless unable to use metformin) and empagliflozin (unless unable to use empagliflozin).

The baseline mean age and weight for the patient population in this retrospective chart review was 70.7 years and 238.2 lb, respectively. Ninety-six patients (70.6%) were started on semaglutide, 27 (19.9%) on dulaglutide, 12 (8.8%) on liraglutide, and 1 (0.7%) on exenatide. The mean HbA_1c when patients initiated a GLP-1 agonist was 8.6%. When starting a GLP-1 agonist, 34 patients (25.0%) had an HbA_1c < 8%, 89 (65.4%) had an HbA_1c between 8% to 10%, and 13 (9.6%) had an HbA_1c > 10% (Table).

For the primary results, 25 patients (26.0%) had a dose reduction of insulin when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 55 patients (57.3%) had at least 1 insulin dose reduction within the year follow-up. Seven patients (13.0%) had a dose reduction of a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 16 patients (29.6%) had at least 1 dose reduction of a sulfonylurea within the year follow-up. Six patients (6.3%) discontinued insulin use when they initially started a GLP-1 agonist, and 14 patients (14.6%) discontinued insulin use within the year follow-up. Eleven patients (20.4%) discontinued sulfonylurea use when they initially started a GLP-1 agonist, and 21 patients (38.9%) discontinued sulfonylurea use within the year follow-up (Figure).

Fourteen patients were on both insulin and a sulfonylurea. Two patients (14.3%) had a dose reduction of insulin when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 5 (35.7%) had ≥ 1 insulin dose reduction within the year follow-up. Three patients (21.4%) had a dose reduction of a sulfonylurea when they started a GLP-1 agonist, and 6 (42.9%) had ≥ 1 dose reduction of a sulfonylurea within the year follow-up. Seven patients (50.0%) discontinued sulfonylurea and 3 (21.4%) discontinued insulin at any time throughout the year. The majority of the discontinuations were at the initial start of GLP-1 agonist therapy.

The mean HbA_1c for patients on GLP-1 agonist was 8.6% at baseline, 8.0% at 0 to 3 months, 7.6% at 3 to 6 months, and 7.5% at 12 months. Patients experienced a mean HbA_1c reduction of 1.1%. The mean weight when a GLP-1 agonist was started was 238.2 lb, 236.0 lb at 0 to 3 months, 223.8 lb at 3 to 6 months, and 224.3 lb after 12 months. Study participants lost a mean weight of 13.9 lb while on a GLP-1 agonist.

Discussion

While this study did not examine why there were dose reductions or discontinuations, we can hypothesize that insulin or sulfonylureas were reduced or discontinued due to a myriad of reasons, such as prophylactic dosing per guidelines, patients having a hypoglycemic event, or pharmacists anticipating potential low blood glucose trends. Also, there could have been numerous reasons GLP-1 agonists were started in patients on insulin or a sulfonylurea, such as HbA_1c not being within goal range, cardiovascular benefits (reduce risk of stroke, heart attack, and death), weight loss, and renal protection, such as preventing albuminuria.^13,14

This retrospective chart review found a large proportion of patients had a dose reduction of insulin (57.3%) or sulfonylurea (29.6%). The percentage of patients with a dose reduction was potentially underestimated as patients were not counted if they discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea. Concomitant use of GLP-1 agonists with insulin or a sulfonylurea may increase the risk of hypoglycemia and reducing the dose of insulin or a sulfonylurea may be necessary.^9-11 The dose reductions in this study show that pharmacists within pharmacy-led PACT clinics monitor for or attempt to prevent hypoglycemia, which aligns with the prescribing information of GLP-1 agonists. While increasing the insulin or sulfonylurea dose is an option for patients, this approach can increase the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in an older population, like this one with a mean age > 70 years. The large proportions of patients with dose reductions or insulin and sulfonylurea discontinuations suggest that pharmacists may need to take a more cautious approach when initiating a GLP-1 agonist to prevent adverse health outcomes related to low blood sugar for older adults, such as falls and fractures.

Insulin was discontinued in 20.4% of patients and sulfonylurea was discontinued in 38.9% of patients within 12 months after starting a GLP-1 agonist. When a patient was on both insulin and a sulfonylurea, the percentage of patients who discontinued insulin (21.4%) or a sulfonylurea (50.0%) was higher compared with patients just on insulin (14.6%) or a sulfonylurea (38.9%) alone. Patients on both insulin and a sulfonylurea may need closer monitoring due to a higher incidence of discontinuations when these diabetes agents are administered in combination.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be considered when evaluating the results. This review was comprised of a mostly older, male population, which results in a low generalizability to organizations other than VA medical centers. In addition, this study only evaluated patients on a GLP-1 agonist followed in a pharmacist-led PACT clinic. This study excluded patients who were prescribed a GLP-1 agonist by an endocrinologist or a pharmacist at one of the community-based outpatient clinics affiliated with WBVAMC, or a pharmacist or clinician outside the VA. The sole focus of this study was patients in a pharmacist-led VAMC clinic. Not all patient data may have been included in the study. If a patient did not have an appointment at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months or did not obtain laboratory tests, HbA_1c and weights were not recorded. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and in-person appointments were potentially switched to phone or video appointments. There were many instances during this chart review where a weight was not recorded at each time interval. Also, this study did not consider any other diabetes medications the patient was taking. There were many instances where the patient was taking metformin and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. These medications along with diet could have affected the weight results as metformin is weight neutral and SGLT-2 inhibitors promote weight loss.¹⁵ Lastly, this study did not evaluate the amount of insulin reduced, only if there was a dose reduction or discontinuation of insulin and/or a sulfonylurea.

Conclusions

Dose reductions and a discontinuation of insulin or a sulfonylurea with the addition of a GLP-1 agonist may be needed. Patients on both insulin and a sulfonylurea may need closer monitoring due to the higher incidences of discontinuations compared with patients on just 1 of these agents. Dose reductions or discontinuations of these diabetic agents can promote positive patient outcomes, such as preventing hypoglycemia, minimizing weight gain, increasing weight loss, and reducing HbA_1c levels.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Pennsylvania.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s that time of the year, when social media is rife with many top 5 and top 10 lists. Perhaps the beginning of a new year is a good time to review how different medications can have side effects beyond the disease state they’re used to address. Among the most common complications of many medications is the potential to disrupt glycemic control. Let’s revisit some of the most commonly used medications known to increase glucose levels and look at some practical tips on overcoming these.

1. Glucocorticoids

Without a doubt, corticosteroids are at the top of the list when it comes to the potential for increasing blood glucose levels. High-dose glucocorticoid therapy is known to lead to new-onset diabetes (steroid-induced diabetes). Similarly, people with preexisting diabetes may notice significant worsening of glycemic control when they start on glucocorticoid therapy. The extent of glucose elevation depends on their glycemic status prior to initiation on steroids, the dose and duration of glucocorticoid therapy, and comorbid conditions, among other factors.

Management tip: For those with previously well-controlled diabetes or borderline diabetes, glucocorticoid-induced hyperglycemia may be managed by metformin with or without sulfonylurea therapy, especially if corticosteroid treatment is low-dose and for a shorter duration. However, for many individuals with preexisting poorly controlled diabetes or those initiated on high-dose corticosteroids, insulin therapy would perhaps be the treatment of choice. Glucocorticoid therapy generally leads to more pronounced postprandial hyperglycemia compared with fasting hyperglycemia; hence, the use of short-acting insulin therapy or perhaps NPH insulin in the morning might be a better option for many individuals. Dietary modification plays an important role in limiting the extent of postprandial hyperglycemia. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices may also be very helpful for understanding glycemic excursions and how to adjust insulin. In individuals for whom glucocorticoid therapy is tapered down, it is important to adjust the dose of medications with potential to cause hypoglycemia, such as insulin/sulfonylurea therapy, as the degree of hyperglycemia may decrease with decreased dose of the glucocorticoid therapy.

2. Antipsychotic Therapy

Antipsychotic medications can be obesogenic; between 15% and 72% of people who take second-generation antipsychotics experience weight gain of 7% or more. Increases in weight are not the only factor contributing to an elevated risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Antipsychotics are thought to cause downregulation of intracellular insulin signaling, leading to insulin resistance. At the same time, there seems to be a direct effect on the pancreatic beta cells. Antagonism of the dopamine D2, serotonin 5-HT2C, and muscarinic M3 receptors impairs beta-cell response to changes in blood glucose. In addition to the pharmacologic effects, cell culture experiments have shown that antipsychotics increase apoptosis of beta cells. Increased weight and concomitant development of type 2 diabetes is seen particularly in agents that exhibit high muscarinic M3 and histamine H1 receptor blockade. The effect on glucose metabolism is seen the most with agents such as clozapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol and the least with agents such as ziprasidone.

Management tip: Given the ongoing change in the understanding of increases in weight and their association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, a metabolically safer approach involves starting with medications that have a lower propensity for weight gain, and the partial agonists/third-generation antipsychotics as a family presently have the best overall data.

3. Thiazide Diuretics

Thiazide diuretics are commonly used for the management of hypertension and are associated with metabolic complications including hypokalemia; higher cholesterol, triglycerides, and other circulating lipids; and elevated glucose. It’s thought that the reduced potassium level occurring as a result of these medications might contribute to new-onset diabetes. The hypokalemia occurring from these medications is thought to lead to a decrease in insulin secretion and sensitivity, which is dose dependent. Studies show that the number needed to harm for chlorthalidone-induced diabetes is 29 over 1 year. There is believed to be no additional risk beyond 1 year.

Management tip: It’s important to monitor potassium levels for those initiated on thiazide diuretics. If hypokalemia occurs, it would be pertinent to correct the hypokalemia with potassium supplements to mitigate the risk for new-onset diabetes.

4. Statin Therapy

Statin therapy is thought to be associated with decreased insulin sensitivity and impairment in insulin secretion. The overall incidence of diabetes is pegged to be between 9% and 12% on statin therapy on the basis of meta-analysis studies, and higher on the basis of population-based studies. Overall, the estimated number needed to harm is: 1 out of every 255 patients on statin therapy for 4 years may develop new-onset diabetes. Compare this with the extremely strong evidence for number needed to treat being 39 for 5 years with statin therapy in patients with preexisting heart disease to prevent one occurrence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Management tip: Although statins are associated with a small incident increase in the risk of developing diabetes, the potential benefits of using statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease significantly outweigh any of the potential risks associated with hyperglycemia. This is an important discussion to have with patients who are reluctant to use statin therapy because of the potential risk for new-onset diabetes as a side effect.

5. Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are another commonly used group of medications for managing hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and arrhythmia. Nonvasodilating beta-blockers such as metoprolol and atenolol are more likely to be associated with increases in A1c, mean plasma glucose, body weight, and triglycerides compared with vasodilating beta-blockers such as carvedilol, nebivolol, and labetalol (Bakris GL et al; Giugliano D et al). Similarly, studies have also shown that atenolol and metoprolol are associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia compared with carvedilol. People on beta-blockers may have masking of some of the symptoms of hypoglycemia, such as tremor, irritability, and palpitations, while other symptoms such as diaphoresis may remain unaffected on beta-blockers.

Management tip: Education on recognizing and managing hypoglycemia would be important when starting patients on beta-blockers if they are on preexisting insulin/sulfonylurea therapy. Use of CGM devices may be helpful if there is a high risk for hypoglycemia, especially as symptoms of hypoglycemia are often masked.

Honorable Mention

Several other medications — including antiretroviral therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and interferon alpha — are associated with worsening glycemic control and new-onset diabetes. Consider these agents’ effects on blood glucose, especially in people with an elevated risk of developing diabetes or those with preexisting diabetes, when prescribing.

A special mention should also be made of androgen deprivation therapy. These include treatment options like goserelin and leuprolide, which are gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapies and are commonly used for prostate cancer management. Depending on the patient, these agents may be used for prolonged duration. Androgen deprivation therapy, by definition, decreases testosterone levels in men, thereby leading to worsening insulin resistance. Increase in fat mass and concomitant muscle wasting have been associated with the use of these medications; these, in turn, lead to peripheral insulin resistance. Nearly 1 out of every 5 men treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy may be prone to developing worsening of A1c by 1% or more.

Management tip: Men on androgen deprivation therapy should be encouraged to participate in regular physical activity to reduce the burden of insulin resistance and to promote cardiovascular health.

Drug-induced diabetes is potentially reversible in many cases. Similarly, worsening of glycemic control due to medications in people with preexisting diabetes may also attenuate once the effect of the drug wears off. Blood glucose should be monitored on an ongoing basis so that diabetes medications can be adjusted. For some individuals, however, the worsening of glycemic status may be more chronic and may require long-term use of antihyperglycemic agents, especially if the benefits of continuation of the medication leading to hyperglycemia far exceed any potential risks.
 

Dr. Jain is Clinical Instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia; Endocrinologist, Fraser River Endocrinology, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Once-weekly insulin icodec shows a higher glycated A1c reduction than once-daily basal insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), without major safety concerns.

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of five phase 3 ONWARDS randomized controlled trials included 3764 patients with T2D.
• The trials compared the effects of the weekly insulin icodec with those of the daily basal insulin analogs glargine and degludec over 26-78 months.
• The primary outcome was the change in A1c levels.
• Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose levels, A1c levels < 7%, time in target glycemic range, body weight changes, insulin dose, hypoglycemia events, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels < 7% were observed in a higher percentage of patients in the insulin icodec group than in the comparator group (odds ratio, 1.51; P = .004).
• In subgroup analyses, insulin icodec was superior to insulin degludec by several measures but comparatively similar to glargine.
• Insulin icodec was associated with no major safety concerns and had a slightly higher incidence of levels 1, 2, and combined 2/3 than degludec but no significant differences compared with glargine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained glycemic control with once-weekly injections of insulin icodec would lead to better patient acceptance and treatment satisfaction,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, authored by Sahana Shetty, MD, and Renuka Suvarna, MSc, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Department of Endocrinology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, was published online on January 8, 2024, in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The comparator group included individuals who used different basal insulin analogs. This heterogeneity in the comparator group introduced a potential source of variability, making it challenging to isolate the specific effects of insulin icodec compared with a standardized comparator. Blinding or masking of participants was performed in only one of the five trials.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. All five clinical trials in the meta-analysis were sponsored by Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Once-weekly insulin icodec shows a higher glycated A1c reduction than once-daily basal insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), without major safety concerns.

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of five phase 3 ONWARDS randomized controlled trials included 3764 patients with T2D.
• The trials compared the effects of the weekly insulin icodec with those of the daily basal insulin analogs glargine and degludec over 26-78 months.
• The primary outcome was the change in A1c levels.
• Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose levels, A1c levels < 7%, time in target glycemic range, body weight changes, insulin dose, hypoglycemia events, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels < 7% were observed in a higher percentage of patients in the insulin icodec group than in the comparator group (odds ratio, 1.51; P = .004).
• In subgroup analyses, insulin icodec was superior to insulin degludec by several measures but comparatively similar to glargine.
• Insulin icodec was associated with no major safety concerns and had a slightly higher incidence of levels 1, 2, and combined 2/3 than degludec but no significant differences compared with glargine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained glycemic control with once-weekly injections of insulin icodec would lead to better patient acceptance and treatment satisfaction,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, authored by Sahana Shetty, MD, and Renuka Suvarna, MSc, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Department of Endocrinology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, was published online on January 8, 2024, in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The comparator group included individuals who used different basal insulin analogs. This heterogeneity in the comparator group introduced a potential source of variability, making it challenging to isolate the specific effects of insulin icodec compared with a standardized comparator. Blinding or masking of participants was performed in only one of the five trials.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. All five clinical trials in the meta-analysis were sponsored by Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Once-weekly insulin icodec shows a higher glycated A1c reduction than once-daily basal insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), without major safety concerns.

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of five phase 3 ONWARDS randomized controlled trials included 3764 patients with T2D.
• The trials compared the effects of the weekly insulin icodec with those of the daily basal insulin analogs glargine and degludec over 26-78 months.
• The primary outcome was the change in A1c levels.
• Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose levels, A1c levels < 7%, time in target glycemic range, body weight changes, insulin dose, hypoglycemia events, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels < 7% were observed in a higher percentage of patients in the insulin icodec group than in the comparator group (odds ratio, 1.51; P = .004).
• In subgroup analyses, insulin icodec was superior to insulin degludec by several measures but comparatively similar to glargine.
• Insulin icodec was associated with no major safety concerns and had a slightly higher incidence of levels 1, 2, and combined 2/3 than degludec but no significant differences compared with glargine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained glycemic control with once-weekly injections of insulin icodec would lead to better patient acceptance and treatment satisfaction,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, authored by Sahana Shetty, MD, and Renuka Suvarna, MSc, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Department of Endocrinology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, was published online on January 8, 2024, in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The comparator group included individuals who used different basal insulin analogs. This heterogeneity in the comparator group introduced a potential source of variability, making it challenging to isolate the specific effects of insulin icodec compared with a standardized comparator. Blinding or masking of participants was performed in only one of the five trials.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. All five clinical trials in the meta-analysis were sponsored by Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.