Diabetes

Eli Lilly, maker of the anti-obesity drug Zepbound, announced this week the launch of LillyDirect, a direct-to-patient portal, allowing some patients to obtain its drug for as little as $25 a month.

The move is seen as a major shift in the way these popular medications can reach patients. 

For many of the 42 million Americans with obesity, weight loss medications such as Wegovy, Saxenda, and the brand-new Zepbound can be a godsend, helping them lose the excess pounds they’ve struggled with for decades or a lifetime.

But getting these medications has been a struggle for many who are eligible. Shortages of the drugs have been one barrier, and costs of up to $1,300 monthly — the price tag without insurance coverage — are another hurdle.

But 2024 may be a much brighter year, thanks to Lilly’s new portal as well as other developments:

Insurance coverage on private health plans, while still spotty, may be improving. Federal legislators are fighting a 2003 law that forbids Medicare from paying for the medications when prescribed for obesity.

New research found that semaglutide (Wegovy) can reduce the risk of recurrent strokes and heart attacks as well as deaths from cardiovascular events in those with obesity and preexisting cardiovascular disease (or diseases of the heart and blood vessels), a finding experts said should get the attention of health insurers.

The medications, also referred to as GLP-1 agonists, work by activating the receptors of hormones (called glucagon-like peptide 1 and others) that are naturally released after eating. That, in turn, makes you feel more full, leading to weight loss of up to 22% for some. The medications are approved for those with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or a BMI of 27 with at least one other weight-related health condition such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol. The medicines, injected weekly or more often, are prescribed along with advice about a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity.

LillyDirect

Eli Lilly launched its direct-to-patient portal on Thursday, providing its obesity medicine (as well as diabetes and migraine drugs) direct to the consumer. Patients can access the obesity medicines through the telehealth platform FORM. Patients reach independent telehealth providers, according to Lilly, who can complement a patient’s current doctor or be an alternative to in-patient care in some cases. 

Eli Lilly officials did not respond to requests for comment. 

Some obesity experts welcomed the new service. “Any program that improves availability and affordability of these ground-breaking medications is welcome news for our long-suffering patients,” said Louis Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, a long-time obesity researcher.

“It’s a great move for Lilly to do,” agreed Caroline Apovian, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who is also a veteran obesity specialist. “It is trying to help the accessibility issue and do it responsibly.” 

“The bottom line is, there is an overwhelming amount of consumer need and desire for these medications and not enough channels [to provide them],” said Zeev Neuwirth, MD, a former executive at Atrium Health who writes about health care trends. “Eli Lilly is responding to a market need that is out there and quite honestly continuing to grow.” 

There are still concerns and questions, Dr. Neuwirth said, “especially since this is to my knowledge the first of its kind in terms of a pharmaceutical manufacturer directly dispensing medication in this nontraditional way.”

He called for transparency between telehealth providers and the pharmaceutical company to rule out any conflicts of interest. 

The American College of Physicians, an organization of internal medicine doctors and others, issued a statement expressing concern. Omar T. Atiq, MD, group’s president, said his organization is “concerned by the development of websites that enable patients to order prescription medications directly from the drugmakers. While information on in-person care is available, this direct-to-consumer approach is primarily oriented around the use of telehealth services to prescribe a drug maker’s products.”

The group urged that an established patient-doctor relationship be present, or that care should happen in consultation with a doctor who does have an established relationship (the latter an option offered by Lilly). “These direct-to-consumer services have the potential to leave patients confused and misinformed about medications.”

Heart Attack, Stroke Reduction Benefits

Previous research has found that the GLP-1 medicines such as Ozempic (semaglutide), which the FDA approved to treat diabetes, also reduce the risk of cardiovascular issues such as strokes and heart attacks. Now, new research finds that semaglutide at the Wegovy dose (usually slightly higher than the Ozempic dose for diabetes) also has those benefits in those who don›t have a diabetes diagnosis but do have obesity and cardiovascular disease.

In a clinical trial sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the maker of Wegovy, half of more than 17,000 people with obesity were given semaglutide (Wegovy); the other half got a placebo. Compared to those on the placebo, those who took the Wegovy had a 20% reduction in strokes, heart attacks, and deaths from cardiovascular causes over a 33-month period. 

The study results are a “big deal,” Dr. Aronne said. The results make it clear that those with obesity but not diabetes will get the cardiovascular benefits from the treatment as well. While more analysis is necessary, he said the important point is that the study showed that reducing body weight is linked to improvement in critical health outcomes.

As the research evolves, he said, it’s going to be difficult for insurers to deny medications in the face of those findings, which promise reductions in long-term health care costs.

Insurance Coverage

In November, the American Medical Association voted to adopt a policy to urge insurance coverage for evidence-based treatment for obesity, including the new obesity medications.

“No single organization is going to be able to convince insurers and employers to cover this,” Dr. Aronne said. “But I think a prominent organization like the AMA adding their voice to the rising chorus is going to help.”

Coverage of GLP-1 medications could nearly double in 2024, according to a survey of 500 human resources decision-makers released in October by Accolade, a personalized health care advocacy and delivery company. While 25% of respondents said they currently offered coverage when the survey was done in August and September, 43% said they intend to offer coverage in 2024.

In an email, David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a health care industry association, said: “Every American deserves affordable coverage and high-quality care, and that includes coverage and care for evidence-based obesity treatments and therapies.”

He said “clinical leaders and other experts at health insurance providers routinely review the evidence for all types of treatments, including treatments for obesity, and offer multiple options to patients — ranging from lifestyle changes and nutrition counseling, to surgical interventions, to prescription drugs.” 

Mr. Allen said the evidence that obesity drugs help with weight loss “is still evolving.”

“And some patients are experiencing bad effects related to these drugs such as vomiting and nausea, for example, and the likelihood of gaining the weight back when discontinuing the drugs,” he said. 

Others are fighting for Medicare coverage, while some experts contend the costs of that coverage would be overwhelming. A bipartisan bill, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2023, would allow coverage under Medicare›s prescription drug benefit for drugs used for the treatment of obesity or for weigh loss management for people who are overweight. Some say it›s an uphill climb, citing a Vanderbilt University analysis that found giving just 10% of Medicare-eligible patients the drugs would cost $13.6 billion to more than $26 billion.

However, a white paper from the University of Southern California concluded that the value to society of covering the drugs for Medicare recipients would equal nearly $1 trillion over 10 years, citing savings in hospitalizations and other health care costs.

Comprehensive insurance coverage is needed, Dr. Apovian said. Private insurance plans, Medicare, and Medicaid must all realize the importance of covering what has been now shown to be life-saving drugs, she said. 

Broader coverage might also reduce the number of patients getting obesity drugs from unreliable sources, in an effort to save money, and having adverse effects. The FDA warned against counterfeit semaglutide in December.

Long-Term Picture

Research suggests the obesity medications must be taken continuously, at least for most people, to maintain the weight loss. In a study of patients on Zepbound, Dr. Aronne and colleagues found that withdrawing the medication led people to regain weight, while continuing it led to maintaining and even increasing the initial weight loss. While some may be able to use the medications only from time to time, “the majority will have to take these on a chronic basis,” Dr. Aronne said.

Obesity, like high blood pressure and other chronic conditions, needs continuous treatment, Dr. Apovian said. No one would suggest withdrawing blood pressure medications that stabilize blood pressure; the same should be true for the obesity drugs, she said.

Dr. Apovian consults for FORM, the telehealth platform Lilly uses for LillyDirect, and consults for Novo Nordisk, which makes Saxenda and Wegovy. Dr. Aronne is a consultant and investigator for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Eli Lilly, maker of the anti-obesity drug Zepbound, announced this week the launch of LillyDirect, a direct-to-patient portal, allowing some patients to obtain its drug for as little as $25 a month.

The move is seen as a major shift in the way these popular medications can reach patients. 

For many of the 42 million Americans with obesity, weight loss medications such as Wegovy, Saxenda, and the brand-new Zepbound can be a godsend, helping them lose the excess pounds they’ve struggled with for decades or a lifetime.

But getting these medications has been a struggle for many who are eligible. Shortages of the drugs have been one barrier, and costs of up to $1,300 monthly — the price tag without insurance coverage — are another hurdle.

But 2024 may be a much brighter year, thanks to Lilly’s new portal as well as other developments:

Insurance coverage on private health plans, while still spotty, may be improving. Federal legislators are fighting a 2003 law that forbids Medicare from paying for the medications when prescribed for obesity.

New research found that semaglutide (Wegovy) can reduce the risk of recurrent strokes and heart attacks as well as deaths from cardiovascular events in those with obesity and preexisting cardiovascular disease (or diseases of the heart and blood vessels), a finding experts said should get the attention of health insurers.

The medications, also referred to as GLP-1 agonists, work by activating the receptors of hormones (called glucagon-like peptide 1 and others) that are naturally released after eating. That, in turn, makes you feel more full, leading to weight loss of up to 22% for some. The medications are approved for those with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or a BMI of 27 with at least one other weight-related health condition such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol. The medicines, injected weekly or more often, are prescribed along with advice about a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity.

LillyDirect

Eli Lilly launched its direct-to-patient portal on Thursday, providing its obesity medicine (as well as diabetes and migraine drugs) direct to the consumer. Patients can access the obesity medicines through the telehealth platform FORM. Patients reach independent telehealth providers, according to Lilly, who can complement a patient’s current doctor or be an alternative to in-patient care in some cases. 

Eli Lilly officials did not respond to requests for comment. 

Some obesity experts welcomed the new service. “Any program that improves availability and affordability of these ground-breaking medications is welcome news for our long-suffering patients,” said Louis Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, a long-time obesity researcher.

“It’s a great move for Lilly to do,” agreed Caroline Apovian, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who is also a veteran obesity specialist. “It is trying to help the accessibility issue and do it responsibly.” 

“The bottom line is, there is an overwhelming amount of consumer need and desire for these medications and not enough channels [to provide them],” said Zeev Neuwirth, MD, a former executive at Atrium Health who writes about health care trends. “Eli Lilly is responding to a market need that is out there and quite honestly continuing to grow.” 

There are still concerns and questions, Dr. Neuwirth said, “especially since this is to my knowledge the first of its kind in terms of a pharmaceutical manufacturer directly dispensing medication in this nontraditional way.”

He called for transparency between telehealth providers and the pharmaceutical company to rule out any conflicts of interest. 

The American College of Physicians, an organization of internal medicine doctors and others, issued a statement expressing concern. Omar T. Atiq, MD, group’s president, said his organization is “concerned by the development of websites that enable patients to order prescription medications directly from the drugmakers. While information on in-person care is available, this direct-to-consumer approach is primarily oriented around the use of telehealth services to prescribe a drug maker’s products.”

The group urged that an established patient-doctor relationship be present, or that care should happen in consultation with a doctor who does have an established relationship (the latter an option offered by Lilly). “These direct-to-consumer services have the potential to leave patients confused and misinformed about medications.”

Heart Attack, Stroke Reduction Benefits

Previous research has found that the GLP-1 medicines such as Ozempic (semaglutide), which the FDA approved to treat diabetes, also reduce the risk of cardiovascular issues such as strokes and heart attacks. Now, new research finds that semaglutide at the Wegovy dose (usually slightly higher than the Ozempic dose for diabetes) also has those benefits in those who don›t have a diabetes diagnosis but do have obesity and cardiovascular disease.

In a clinical trial sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the maker of Wegovy, half of more than 17,000 people with obesity were given semaglutide (Wegovy); the other half got a placebo. Compared to those on the placebo, those who took the Wegovy had a 20% reduction in strokes, heart attacks, and deaths from cardiovascular causes over a 33-month period. 

The study results are a “big deal,” Dr. Aronne said. The results make it clear that those with obesity but not diabetes will get the cardiovascular benefits from the treatment as well. While more analysis is necessary, he said the important point is that the study showed that reducing body weight is linked to improvement in critical health outcomes.

As the research evolves, he said, it’s going to be difficult for insurers to deny medications in the face of those findings, which promise reductions in long-term health care costs.

Insurance Coverage

In November, the American Medical Association voted to adopt a policy to urge insurance coverage for evidence-based treatment for obesity, including the new obesity medications.

“No single organization is going to be able to convince insurers and employers to cover this,” Dr. Aronne said. “But I think a prominent organization like the AMA adding their voice to the rising chorus is going to help.”

Coverage of GLP-1 medications could nearly double in 2024, according to a survey of 500 human resources decision-makers released in October by Accolade, a personalized health care advocacy and delivery company. While 25% of respondents said they currently offered coverage when the survey was done in August and September, 43% said they intend to offer coverage in 2024.

In an email, David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a health care industry association, said: “Every American deserves affordable coverage and high-quality care, and that includes coverage and care for evidence-based obesity treatments and therapies.”

He said “clinical leaders and other experts at health insurance providers routinely review the evidence for all types of treatments, including treatments for obesity, and offer multiple options to patients — ranging from lifestyle changes and nutrition counseling, to surgical interventions, to prescription drugs.” 

Mr. Allen said the evidence that obesity drugs help with weight loss “is still evolving.”

“And some patients are experiencing bad effects related to these drugs such as vomiting and nausea, for example, and the likelihood of gaining the weight back when discontinuing the drugs,” he said. 

Others are fighting for Medicare coverage, while some experts contend the costs of that coverage would be overwhelming. A bipartisan bill, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2023, would allow coverage under Medicare›s prescription drug benefit for drugs used for the treatment of obesity or for weigh loss management for people who are overweight. Some say it›s an uphill climb, citing a Vanderbilt University analysis that found giving just 10% of Medicare-eligible patients the drugs would cost $13.6 billion to more than $26 billion.

However, a white paper from the University of Southern California concluded that the value to society of covering the drugs for Medicare recipients would equal nearly $1 trillion over 10 years, citing savings in hospitalizations and other health care costs.

Comprehensive insurance coverage is needed, Dr. Apovian said. Private insurance plans, Medicare, and Medicaid must all realize the importance of covering what has been now shown to be life-saving drugs, she said. 

Broader coverage might also reduce the number of patients getting obesity drugs from unreliable sources, in an effort to save money, and having adverse effects. The FDA warned against counterfeit semaglutide in December.

Long-Term Picture

Research suggests the obesity medications must be taken continuously, at least for most people, to maintain the weight loss. In a study of patients on Zepbound, Dr. Aronne and colleagues found that withdrawing the medication led people to regain weight, while continuing it led to maintaining and even increasing the initial weight loss. While some may be able to use the medications only from time to time, “the majority will have to take these on a chronic basis,” Dr. Aronne said.

Obesity, like high blood pressure and other chronic conditions, needs continuous treatment, Dr. Apovian said. No one would suggest withdrawing blood pressure medications that stabilize blood pressure; the same should be true for the obesity drugs, she said.

Dr. Apovian consults for FORM, the telehealth platform Lilly uses for LillyDirect, and consults for Novo Nordisk, which makes Saxenda and Wegovy. Dr. Aronne is a consultant and investigator for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Eli Lilly, maker of the anti-obesity drug Zepbound, announced this week the launch of LillyDirect, a direct-to-patient portal, allowing some patients to obtain its drug for as little as $25 a month.

The move is seen as a major shift in the way these popular medications can reach patients. 

For many of the 42 million Americans with obesity, weight loss medications such as Wegovy, Saxenda, and the brand-new Zepbound can be a godsend, helping them lose the excess pounds they’ve struggled with for decades or a lifetime.

But getting these medications has been a struggle for many who are eligible. Shortages of the drugs have been one barrier, and costs of up to $1,300 monthly — the price tag without insurance coverage — are another hurdle.

But 2024 may be a much brighter year, thanks to Lilly’s new portal as well as other developments:

Insurance coverage on private health plans, while still spotty, may be improving. Federal legislators are fighting a 2003 law that forbids Medicare from paying for the medications when prescribed for obesity.

New research found that semaglutide (Wegovy) can reduce the risk of recurrent strokes and heart attacks as well as deaths from cardiovascular events in those with obesity and preexisting cardiovascular disease (or diseases of the heart and blood vessels), a finding experts said should get the attention of health insurers.

The medications, also referred to as GLP-1 agonists, work by activating the receptors of hormones (called glucagon-like peptide 1 and others) that are naturally released after eating. That, in turn, makes you feel more full, leading to weight loss of up to 22% for some. The medications are approved for those with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or a BMI of 27 with at least one other weight-related health condition such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol. The medicines, injected weekly or more often, are prescribed along with advice about a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity.

LillyDirect

Eli Lilly launched its direct-to-patient portal on Thursday, providing its obesity medicine (as well as diabetes and migraine drugs) direct to the consumer. Patients can access the obesity medicines through the telehealth platform FORM. Patients reach independent telehealth providers, according to Lilly, who can complement a patient’s current doctor or be an alternative to in-patient care in some cases. 

Eli Lilly officials did not respond to requests for comment. 

Some obesity experts welcomed the new service. “Any program that improves availability and affordability of these ground-breaking medications is welcome news for our long-suffering patients,” said Louis Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, a long-time obesity researcher.

“It’s a great move for Lilly to do,” agreed Caroline Apovian, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who is also a veteran obesity specialist. “It is trying to help the accessibility issue and do it responsibly.” 

“The bottom line is, there is an overwhelming amount of consumer need and desire for these medications and not enough channels [to provide them],” said Zeev Neuwirth, MD, a former executive at Atrium Health who writes about health care trends. “Eli Lilly is responding to a market need that is out there and quite honestly continuing to grow.” 

There are still concerns and questions, Dr. Neuwirth said, “especially since this is to my knowledge the first of its kind in terms of a pharmaceutical manufacturer directly dispensing medication in this nontraditional way.”

He called for transparency between telehealth providers and the pharmaceutical company to rule out any conflicts of interest. 

The American College of Physicians, an organization of internal medicine doctors and others, issued a statement expressing concern. Omar T. Atiq, MD, group’s president, said his organization is “concerned by the development of websites that enable patients to order prescription medications directly from the drugmakers. While information on in-person care is available, this direct-to-consumer approach is primarily oriented around the use of telehealth services to prescribe a drug maker’s products.”

The group urged that an established patient-doctor relationship be present, or that care should happen in consultation with a doctor who does have an established relationship (the latter an option offered by Lilly). “These direct-to-consumer services have the potential to leave patients confused and misinformed about medications.”

Heart Attack, Stroke Reduction Benefits

Previous research has found that the GLP-1 medicines such as Ozempic (semaglutide), which the FDA approved to treat diabetes, also reduce the risk of cardiovascular issues such as strokes and heart attacks. Now, new research finds that semaglutide at the Wegovy dose (usually slightly higher than the Ozempic dose for diabetes) also has those benefits in those who don›t have a diabetes diagnosis but do have obesity and cardiovascular disease.

In a clinical trial sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the maker of Wegovy, half of more than 17,000 people with obesity were given semaglutide (Wegovy); the other half got a placebo. Compared to those on the placebo, those who took the Wegovy had a 20% reduction in strokes, heart attacks, and deaths from cardiovascular causes over a 33-month period. 

The study results are a “big deal,” Dr. Aronne said. The results make it clear that those with obesity but not diabetes will get the cardiovascular benefits from the treatment as well. While more analysis is necessary, he said the important point is that the study showed that reducing body weight is linked to improvement in critical health outcomes.

As the research evolves, he said, it’s going to be difficult for insurers to deny medications in the face of those findings, which promise reductions in long-term health care costs.

Insurance Coverage

In November, the American Medical Association voted to adopt a policy to urge insurance coverage for evidence-based treatment for obesity, including the new obesity medications.

“No single organization is going to be able to convince insurers and employers to cover this,” Dr. Aronne said. “But I think a prominent organization like the AMA adding their voice to the rising chorus is going to help.”

Coverage of GLP-1 medications could nearly double in 2024, according to a survey of 500 human resources decision-makers released in October by Accolade, a personalized health care advocacy and delivery company. While 25% of respondents said they currently offered coverage when the survey was done in August and September, 43% said they intend to offer coverage in 2024.

In an email, David Allen, a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a health care industry association, said: “Every American deserves affordable coverage and high-quality care, and that includes coverage and care for evidence-based obesity treatments and therapies.”

He said “clinical leaders and other experts at health insurance providers routinely review the evidence for all types of treatments, including treatments for obesity, and offer multiple options to patients — ranging from lifestyle changes and nutrition counseling, to surgical interventions, to prescription drugs.” 

Mr. Allen said the evidence that obesity drugs help with weight loss “is still evolving.”

“And some patients are experiencing bad effects related to these drugs such as vomiting and nausea, for example, and the likelihood of gaining the weight back when discontinuing the drugs,” he said. 

Others are fighting for Medicare coverage, while some experts contend the costs of that coverage would be overwhelming. A bipartisan bill, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2023, would allow coverage under Medicare›s prescription drug benefit for drugs used for the treatment of obesity or for weigh loss management for people who are overweight. Some say it›s an uphill climb, citing a Vanderbilt University analysis that found giving just 10% of Medicare-eligible patients the drugs would cost $13.6 billion to more than $26 billion.

However, a white paper from the University of Southern California concluded that the value to society of covering the drugs for Medicare recipients would equal nearly $1 trillion over 10 years, citing savings in hospitalizations and other health care costs.

Comprehensive insurance coverage is needed, Dr. Apovian said. Private insurance plans, Medicare, and Medicaid must all realize the importance of covering what has been now shown to be life-saving drugs, she said. 

Broader coverage might also reduce the number of patients getting obesity drugs from unreliable sources, in an effort to save money, and having adverse effects. The FDA warned against counterfeit semaglutide in December.

Long-Term Picture

Research suggests the obesity medications must be taken continuously, at least for most people, to maintain the weight loss. In a study of patients on Zepbound, Dr. Aronne and colleagues found that withdrawing the medication led people to regain weight, while continuing it led to maintaining and even increasing the initial weight loss. While some may be able to use the medications only from time to time, “the majority will have to take these on a chronic basis,” Dr. Aronne said.

Obesity, like high blood pressure and other chronic conditions, needs continuous treatment, Dr. Apovian said. No one would suggest withdrawing blood pressure medications that stabilize blood pressure; the same should be true for the obesity drugs, she said.

Dr. Apovian consults for FORM, the telehealth platform Lilly uses for LillyDirect, and consults for Novo Nordisk, which makes Saxenda and Wegovy. Dr. Aronne is a consultant and investigator for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Rapid surges in insulin following a meal are associated with favorable long-term cardiometabolic benefits, including improvements in beta cell function and a lower risk for the development of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to some concerns of the surges being indicative of more negative effects.

“There are practitioners who subscribe to this notion of higher insulin levels being a bad thing, and sometimes are making recommendations to patients to limit their insulin fluctuations after the meal,” said first author Ravi Retnakaran, MD, an endocrinologist and Boehringer Ingelheim Chair in Beta-cell Preservation, Function and Regeneration at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, in a press statement.

“But it’s not that simple,” he said. “We observed that a robust post-challenge insulin secretory response, once adjusted for glucose levels, is only associated with beneficial metabolic effects.”

The findings were published on December 13, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

Insulin levels increase after food consumption in the normal management of blood glucose; however, some research has suggested that more rapid spikes in insulin, especially after a high-carbohydrate meal, are linked to an anabolic state contributing to weight gain and insulin resistance.

As public awareness of those reports has grown, “patients are coming in concerned about the possibility of their insulin levels being high, and there is confusion about the physiology of these effects,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization. 

However, other studies have shown that the effects of insulin surges are important relative to baseline factors, including ambient glycemia and, specifically, baseline glucose levels prior to a meal.

Therefore, a more appropriate assessment is to use a corrected insulin response, measuring insulin secretion at 30 minutes after an oral glucose challenge, in relation to baseline glucose levels, research has suggested.

To investigate the issue in a longitudinal context, Dr. Retnakaran and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study of 306 pregnant women representing a full range of glucose tolerance, who were enrolled at a hospital in Toronto between October 2003 and March 2014.

The women received comprehensive cardiometabolic testing, including oral glucose tolerance tests at 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year postpartum, and their baseline post-challenge insulinemia was established using corrected insulin response at 1 year.

Over 4 years of follow-up, a progressive worsening of cardiometabolic factors was associated with higher tertiles of corrected insulin responses at baseline, including waist circumference (P = .016), high-density lipoprotein (P = .018), C-reactive protein (CRP; P = .006), and insulin sensitivity (P < .001).

However, those trends were also associated with progressively improved beta cell function (P < .001).

After adjustment in the longitudinal analysis for the clinical risk factors for diabetes, including age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, and body mass index (BMI) at 1 year, a higher corrected insulin response tertile at baseline was independently associated with improved Insulin Secretion-Sensitivity Index-2 and insulinogenic index/insulin resistance index (IGI/HOMA-IR), as well as lower glycemia, as observed on fasting and 2-hour glucose at 3 years and 5 years (all P < .001).

The insulin response was meanwhile not associated with BMI, waist, lipids, CRP, or insulin sensitivity or resistance.

Importantly, the highest corrected insulin response tertile at 1-year postpartum was also significantly associated with a lower risk for prediabetes or diabetes than the lowest tertile at 3 years (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.19) as well as 5 years (aOR, 0.18).

“The real question in my mind was whether we had the statistical power to be able to demonstrate a longitudinal beneficial effect on glucose regulation, but we did,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization. “The results show lower prediabetes and diabetes among people who had the most robust postprandial insulin excursion at 1-year postpartum.”

While the unadjusted analyses at baseline showed adverse as well as favorable outcomes, “adjusted longitudinal analyses revealed consistent independent associations of higher complete insulin response with better beta cell function, lower glycemia, and lower risk of prediabetes or diabetes in the years thereafter,” the authors reported.

“This evidence should help push back concern around the postprandial insulin spike,” Dr. Retnakaran said.

Commenting on the study, James D. Johnson, PhD, a professor of cellular and physiological sciences and director of the Life Sciences Institute at the University of British Columbia, Canada, noted that “it is already well-known that the loss of postprandial first phase insulin secretion can be a key and early defect in the transition to prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. That is not new, but the confirmatory data are welcome,” he told this news organization.

However, with other data linking high insulin with adiposity and insulin resistance, “the nuance and subtleties are critical for us to understand the directions of the causality,” he said.

“It is quite possible that both of these models are true at different life stages and/or in different people. There may be more than one pathway to diabetes. This is the nature of science and progress.”

A key caveat is that with a specific cohort of pregnant women, the question remains of the generalizability to men and to those younger or older than childbearing age.

Nevertheless, “I think this is an interesting and important study,” Dr. Johnson said. “More data on this topic is always welcome, but I am not sure this will be the final say in this debate.”

The authors and Dr. Johnson had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rapid surges in insulin following a meal are associated with favorable long-term cardiometabolic benefits, including improvements in beta cell function and a lower risk for the development of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to some concerns of the surges being indicative of more negative effects.

“There are practitioners who subscribe to this notion of higher insulin levels being a bad thing, and sometimes are making recommendations to patients to limit their insulin fluctuations after the meal,” said first author Ravi Retnakaran, MD, an endocrinologist and Boehringer Ingelheim Chair in Beta-cell Preservation, Function and Regeneration at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, in a press statement.

“But it’s not that simple,” he said. “We observed that a robust post-challenge insulin secretory response, once adjusted for glucose levels, is only associated with beneficial metabolic effects.”

The findings were published on December 13, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

Insulin levels increase after food consumption in the normal management of blood glucose; however, some research has suggested that more rapid spikes in insulin, especially after a high-carbohydrate meal, are linked to an anabolic state contributing to weight gain and insulin resistance.

As public awareness of those reports has grown, “patients are coming in concerned about the possibility of their insulin levels being high, and there is confusion about the physiology of these effects,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization. 

However, other studies have shown that the effects of insulin surges are important relative to baseline factors, including ambient glycemia and, specifically, baseline glucose levels prior to a meal.

Therefore, a more appropriate assessment is to use a corrected insulin response, measuring insulin secretion at 30 minutes after an oral glucose challenge, in relation to baseline glucose levels, research has suggested.

To investigate the issue in a longitudinal context, Dr. Retnakaran and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study of 306 pregnant women representing a full range of glucose tolerance, who were enrolled at a hospital in Toronto between October 2003 and March 2014.

The women received comprehensive cardiometabolic testing, including oral glucose tolerance tests at 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year postpartum, and their baseline post-challenge insulinemia was established using corrected insulin response at 1 year.

Over 4 years of follow-up, a progressive worsening of cardiometabolic factors was associated with higher tertiles of corrected insulin responses at baseline, including waist circumference (P = .016), high-density lipoprotein (P = .018), C-reactive protein (CRP; P = .006), and insulin sensitivity (P < .001).

However, those trends were also associated with progressively improved beta cell function (P < .001).

After adjustment in the longitudinal analysis for the clinical risk factors for diabetes, including age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, and body mass index (BMI) at 1 year, a higher corrected insulin response tertile at baseline was independently associated with improved Insulin Secretion-Sensitivity Index-2 and insulinogenic index/insulin resistance index (IGI/HOMA-IR), as well as lower glycemia, as observed on fasting and 2-hour glucose at 3 years and 5 years (all P < .001).

The insulin response was meanwhile not associated with BMI, waist, lipids, CRP, or insulin sensitivity or resistance.

Importantly, the highest corrected insulin response tertile at 1-year postpartum was also significantly associated with a lower risk for prediabetes or diabetes than the lowest tertile at 3 years (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.19) as well as 5 years (aOR, 0.18).

“The real question in my mind was whether we had the statistical power to be able to demonstrate a longitudinal beneficial effect on glucose regulation, but we did,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization. “The results show lower prediabetes and diabetes among people who had the most robust postprandial insulin excursion at 1-year postpartum.”

While the unadjusted analyses at baseline showed adverse as well as favorable outcomes, “adjusted longitudinal analyses revealed consistent independent associations of higher complete insulin response with better beta cell function, lower glycemia, and lower risk of prediabetes or diabetes in the years thereafter,” the authors reported.

“This evidence should help push back concern around the postprandial insulin spike,” Dr. Retnakaran said.

Commenting on the study, James D. Johnson, PhD, a professor of cellular and physiological sciences and director of the Life Sciences Institute at the University of British Columbia, Canada, noted that “it is already well-known that the loss of postprandial first phase insulin secretion can be a key and early defect in the transition to prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. That is not new, but the confirmatory data are welcome,” he told this news organization.

However, with other data linking high insulin with adiposity and insulin resistance, “the nuance and subtleties are critical for us to understand the directions of the causality,” he said.

“It is quite possible that both of these models are true at different life stages and/or in different people. There may be more than one pathway to diabetes. This is the nature of science and progress.”

A key caveat is that with a specific cohort of pregnant women, the question remains of the generalizability to men and to those younger or older than childbearing age.

Nevertheless, “I think this is an interesting and important study,” Dr. Johnson said. “More data on this topic is always welcome, but I am not sure this will be the final say in this debate.”

The authors and Dr. Johnson had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rapid surges in insulin following a meal are associated with favorable long-term cardiometabolic benefits, including improvements in beta cell function and a lower risk for the development of prediabetes or diabetes, contrary to some concerns of the surges being indicative of more negative effects.

“There are practitioners who subscribe to this notion of higher insulin levels being a bad thing, and sometimes are making recommendations to patients to limit their insulin fluctuations after the meal,” said first author Ravi Retnakaran, MD, an endocrinologist and Boehringer Ingelheim Chair in Beta-cell Preservation, Function and Regeneration at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, in a press statement.

“But it’s not that simple,” he said. “We observed that a robust post-challenge insulin secretory response, once adjusted for glucose levels, is only associated with beneficial metabolic effects.”

The findings were published on December 13, 2023, in eClinicalMedicine, part of The Lancet Discovery Science.

Insulin levels increase after food consumption in the normal management of blood glucose; however, some research has suggested that more rapid spikes in insulin, especially after a high-carbohydrate meal, are linked to an anabolic state contributing to weight gain and insulin resistance.

As public awareness of those reports has grown, “patients are coming in concerned about the possibility of their insulin levels being high, and there is confusion about the physiology of these effects,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization. 

However, other studies have shown that the effects of insulin surges are important relative to baseline factors, including ambient glycemia and, specifically, baseline glucose levels prior to a meal.

Therefore, a more appropriate assessment is to use a corrected insulin response, measuring insulin secretion at 30 minutes after an oral glucose challenge, in relation to baseline glucose levels, research has suggested.

To investigate the issue in a longitudinal context, Dr. Retnakaran and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study of 306 pregnant women representing a full range of glucose tolerance, who were enrolled at a hospital in Toronto between October 2003 and March 2014.

The women received comprehensive cardiometabolic testing, including oral glucose tolerance tests at 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year postpartum, and their baseline post-challenge insulinemia was established using corrected insulin response at 1 year.

Over 4 years of follow-up, a progressive worsening of cardiometabolic factors was associated with higher tertiles of corrected insulin responses at baseline, including waist circumference (P = .016), high-density lipoprotein (P = .018), C-reactive protein (CRP; P = .006), and insulin sensitivity (P < .001).

However, those trends were also associated with progressively improved beta cell function (P < .001).

After adjustment in the longitudinal analysis for the clinical risk factors for diabetes, including age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes, and body mass index (BMI) at 1 year, a higher corrected insulin response tertile at baseline was independently associated with improved Insulin Secretion-Sensitivity Index-2 and insulinogenic index/insulin resistance index (IGI/HOMA-IR), as well as lower glycemia, as observed on fasting and 2-hour glucose at 3 years and 5 years (all P < .001).

The insulin response was meanwhile not associated with BMI, waist, lipids, CRP, or insulin sensitivity or resistance.

Importantly, the highest corrected insulin response tertile at 1-year postpartum was also significantly associated with a lower risk for prediabetes or diabetes than the lowest tertile at 3 years (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.19) as well as 5 years (aOR, 0.18).

“The real question in my mind was whether we had the statistical power to be able to demonstrate a longitudinal beneficial effect on glucose regulation, but we did,” Dr. Retnakaran told this news organization. “The results show lower prediabetes and diabetes among people who had the most robust postprandial insulin excursion at 1-year postpartum.”

While the unadjusted analyses at baseline showed adverse as well as favorable outcomes, “adjusted longitudinal analyses revealed consistent independent associations of higher complete insulin response with better beta cell function, lower glycemia, and lower risk of prediabetes or diabetes in the years thereafter,” the authors reported.

“This evidence should help push back concern around the postprandial insulin spike,” Dr. Retnakaran said.

Commenting on the study, James D. Johnson, PhD, a professor of cellular and physiological sciences and director of the Life Sciences Institute at the University of British Columbia, Canada, noted that “it is already well-known that the loss of postprandial first phase insulin secretion can be a key and early defect in the transition to prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. That is not new, but the confirmatory data are welcome,” he told this news organization.

However, with other data linking high insulin with adiposity and insulin resistance, “the nuance and subtleties are critical for us to understand the directions of the causality,” he said.

“It is quite possible that both of these models are true at different life stages and/or in different people. There may be more than one pathway to diabetes. This is the nature of science and progress.”

A key caveat is that with a specific cohort of pregnant women, the question remains of the generalizability to men and to those younger or older than childbearing age.

Nevertheless, “I think this is an interesting and important study,” Dr. Johnson said. “More data on this topic is always welcome, but I am not sure this will be the final say in this debate.”

The authors and Dr. Johnson had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

TOPLINE:

Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with diabetes who received insulin may have an increased risk for serious hypoglycemic events in extreme heat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Thermoregulatory response is often compromised in older adults with diabetes, making them vulnerable to extreme heat.
• Researchers evaluated the association between ambient heat and risk for hypoglycemia in about 2 million and about 283,000 patients aged 65-100 years with diabetes from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, who received insulin.
• A serious hypoglycemic event was defined as a primary emergency department (ED) visit or an unplanned inpatient admission for hypoglycemia from June 1 to September 30.
• Medication use was determined by at least one prescription dispensing insulin within 90 days of the index event.
• The average heat index (HI), a combination of ambient temperature and humidity exposure, was calculated by ZIP code and grouped into percentiles: ≥ 99th, 95-98th, 85-94th, 76-84th, 25-74th, and < 25th.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among insulin users overall, 32,461 and 10,162 older adults from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, experienced a hypoglycemic event.
• The risk for a serious hypoglycemic event was about 40% higher among insulin users on days with a HI of ≥ 99th percentile than 25-74th percentile (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.48).
• Conversely, on days with a low HI (< 25th percentile), the risk for hypoglycemia among insulin users decreased.
• No substantial differences were observed in the risk for hypoglycemic events and HI by climate region in either country, such as between the US Northeast and Southwest.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding of elevated risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits in older adults using insulin and exposed to extreme heat underscores the need for patients and providers to be aware and cautious that extreme heat may increase the risk of hypoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Aayush Visaria, Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and coauthors. The study was published online on December 7, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The individuals with hypoglycemia were older, were more frequently non-Hispanic Black in the United States, and had more comorbidities, so caution should be used before the results can be generalized to broader populations.
• The authors were unable to capture variables that can alter the risk for serious hypoglycemia, such as outdoor activity, exercise, and diet.
• Prescriptions may not reflect actual insulin use and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with diabetes who received insulin may have an increased risk for serious hypoglycemic events in extreme heat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Thermoregulatory response is often compromised in older adults with diabetes, making them vulnerable to extreme heat.
• Researchers evaluated the association between ambient heat and risk for hypoglycemia in about 2 million and about 283,000 patients aged 65-100 years with diabetes from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, who received insulin.
• A serious hypoglycemic event was defined as a primary emergency department (ED) visit or an unplanned inpatient admission for hypoglycemia from June 1 to September 30.
• Medication use was determined by at least one prescription dispensing insulin within 90 days of the index event.
• The average heat index (HI), a combination of ambient temperature and humidity exposure, was calculated by ZIP code and grouped into percentiles: ≥ 99th, 95-98th, 85-94th, 76-84th, 25-74th, and < 25th.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among insulin users overall, 32,461 and 10,162 older adults from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, experienced a hypoglycemic event.
• The risk for a serious hypoglycemic event was about 40% higher among insulin users on days with a HI of ≥ 99th percentile than 25-74th percentile (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.48).
• Conversely, on days with a low HI (< 25th percentile), the risk for hypoglycemia among insulin users decreased.
• No substantial differences were observed in the risk for hypoglycemic events and HI by climate region in either country, such as between the US Northeast and Southwest.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding of elevated risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits in older adults using insulin and exposed to extreme heat underscores the need for patients and providers to be aware and cautious that extreme heat may increase the risk of hypoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Aayush Visaria, Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and coauthors. The study was published online on December 7, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The individuals with hypoglycemia were older, were more frequently non-Hispanic Black in the United States, and had more comorbidities, so caution should be used before the results can be generalized to broader populations.
• The authors were unable to capture variables that can alter the risk for serious hypoglycemia, such as outdoor activity, exercise, and diet.
• Prescriptions may not reflect actual insulin use and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with diabetes who received insulin may have an increased risk for serious hypoglycemic events in extreme heat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Thermoregulatory response is often compromised in older adults with diabetes, making them vulnerable to extreme heat.
• Researchers evaluated the association between ambient heat and risk for hypoglycemia in about 2 million and about 283,000 patients aged 65-100 years with diabetes from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, who received insulin.
• A serious hypoglycemic event was defined as a primary emergency department (ED) visit or an unplanned inpatient admission for hypoglycemia from June 1 to September 30.
• Medication use was determined by at least one prescription dispensing insulin within 90 days of the index event.
• The average heat index (HI), a combination of ambient temperature and humidity exposure, was calculated by ZIP code and grouped into percentiles: ≥ 99th, 95-98th, 85-94th, 76-84th, 25-74th, and < 25th.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among insulin users overall, 32,461 and 10,162 older adults from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, experienced a hypoglycemic event.
• The risk for a serious hypoglycemic event was about 40% higher among insulin users on days with a HI of ≥ 99th percentile than 25-74th percentile (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.48).
• Conversely, on days with a low HI (< 25th percentile), the risk for hypoglycemia among insulin users decreased.
• No substantial differences were observed in the risk for hypoglycemic events and HI by climate region in either country, such as between the US Northeast and Southwest.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding of elevated risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits in older adults using insulin and exposed to extreme heat underscores the need for patients and providers to be aware and cautious that extreme heat may increase the risk of hypoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Aayush Visaria, Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and coauthors. The study was published online on December 7, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The individuals with hypoglycemia were older, were more frequently non-Hispanic Black in the United States, and had more comorbidities, so caution should be used before the results can be generalized to broader populations.
• The authors were unable to capture variables that can alter the risk for serious hypoglycemia, such as outdoor activity, exercise, and diet.
• Prescriptions may not reflect actual insulin use and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Walking is a simple, cost-free form of exercise that benefits physical, social, and mental health in many ways. Several clinical trials have shown that walking regularly is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, and having a higher daily step count is linked to a decreased risk for premature death.

Walking and Diabetes

In recent years, the link between walking speed and the risk for multiple health problems has sparked keen interest. Data suggest that a faster walking pace may have a greater physiological response and may be associated with more favorable health advantages than a slow walking pace. A previous meta-analysis of eight cohort studies suggested that individuals in the fastest walking-pace category (median = 5.6 km/h) had a 44% lower risk for stroke than those in the slowest walking-pace category (median = 1.6 km/h). The risk for the former decreased by 13% for every 1 km/h increment in baseline walking pace.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the world. People with this type of diabetes have an increased risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications and a shorter life expectancy. Approximately 537 million adults are estimated to be living with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to reach 783 million by 2045.

Physical activity is an essential component of T2D prevention programs and can favorably affect blood sugar control. A meta-analysis of cohort studies showed that being physically active was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of acquiring T2D in the general population, and regular walking was associated with a 15% reduction in the risk of developing T2D.

However, no studies have investigated the link between different walking speeds and the risk for T2D. A team from the Research Center at the Semnan University of Medical Sciences in Iran carried out a systematic review of the association between walking speed and the risk of developing T2D in adults; this review was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

10 Cohort Studies

This systematic review used publications (1999-2022) available in the usual data sources (PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) based on different walking speeds. The researchers rated the credibility of subgroup differences and the certainty of evidence using the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification ANalyses (ICEMAN) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively.

Of the 508,121 potential participants, 18,410 adults from 10 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom were deemed eligible. The proportion of women was between 52% and 73%, depending on the cohort. Follow-up duration varied from 3 to 11.1 years (median, 8 years).

Five cohort studies measured walking speed using stopwatch testing, while the other five used self-assessed questionnaires. To define cases of T2D, seven studies used objective methods such as blood glucose measurement or linkage with medical records, and in three cohorts, self-assessment questionnaires were used (these were checked against patient records). All studies controlled age, sex, and tobacco consumption in the multivariate analyses, and some controlled just alcohol consumption, blood pressure, total physical activity volume, body mass index, time spent walking or daily step count, and a family history of diabetes.

The Right Speed

The authors first categorized walking speed into four prespecified levels: Easy or casual (< 2 mph or 3.2 km/h), average or normal (2-3 mph or 3.2-4.8 km/h), fairly brisk (3-4 mph or 4.8-6.4 km/h), and very brisk or brisk/striding (> 4 mph or > 6.4 km/h).

Four cohort studies with 6,520 cases of T2D among 160,321 participants reported information on average or normal walking. Participants with average or normal walking were at a 15% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.00]; RD = 0.86 [1.72-0]). Ten cohort studies with 18,410 cases among 508,121 participants reported information on fairly brisk walking. Those with fairly brisk walking were at a 24% lower risk for T2D than those with easy or casual walking (RR = 0.76 [0.65-0.87]; I2 = 90%; RD = 1.38 [2.01-0.75]).

There was no significant or credible subgroup difference by adjustment for the total physical activity or time spent walking per day. The dose-response analysis suggested that the risk for T2D decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above.

Study Limitations

This meta-analysis has strengths that may increase the generalizability of its results. The researchers included cohort studies, which allowed them to consider the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. Cohort studies are less affected by recall and selection biases compared with retrospective case–control studies, which increase the likelihood of causality. The researchers also assessed the credibility of subgroup differences using the recently developed ICEMAN tool, calculated both relative and absolute risks, and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Some shortcomings must be considered. Most of the studies included in the present review were rated as having a serious risk for bias, with the most important biases resulting from inadequate adjustment for potential confounders and the methods used for walking speed assessment and diagnosis of T2D. In addition, the findings could have been subject to reverse causality bias because participants with faster walking speed are more likely to perform more physical activity and have better cardiorespiratory fitness, greater muscle mass, and better health status. However, the subgroup analyses of fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking indicated that there were no significant subgroup differences by follow-up duration and that the significant inverse associations remained stable in the subgroup of cohort studies with a follow-up duration of > 10 years.

The authors concluded that “the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that fairly brisk and brisk/striding walking, independent of the total volume of physical activity or time spent walking per day, may be associated with a lower risk of T2D in adults. While current strategies to increase total walking time are beneficial, it may also be reasonable to encourage people to walk at faster speeds to further increase the health benefits of walking.”

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a warning to the public about counterfeit semaglutide (Ozempic) products that have entered the US drug supply. 

Clinicians and patients are advised to check the product packages they have received and not to use those labeled with lot number NAR0074 and serial number 430834149057. Some of these counterfeit products may still be available for purchase, the FDA said in a statement. 

Together with Ozempic manufacturer Novo Nordisk, the FDA is investigating “thousands of units” of the 1-mg injection product. Information is not yet available regarding the drugs’ identity, quality, or safety. However, the pen needles have been confirmed as fake — thereby raising the potential risk for infection — as have the pen labels, accompanying health care professional and patient label information, and carton. 

“FDA takes reports of possible counterfeit products seriously and works closely with other federal agencies and the private sector to help protect the nation’s drug supply. FDA’s investigation is ongoing, and the agency is working with Novo Nordisk to identify, investigate, and remove further suspected counterfeit semaglutide injectable products found in the US,” the statement says. 

Patients are advised to only obtain Ozempic with a valid prescription through state-licensed pharmacies and to check the product before using for any signs of counterfeiting. There are several differences between the genuine and counterfeit products in the way the pen needle is packaged. The most obvious is that the paper tab covering the fake needle says “Novofine®” whereas the genuine one says “Novofine® Plus.” 

There have been at least five adverse events reported from this lot; none were serious and all were consistent with gastrointestinal issues known to occur with the genuine product. 

Counterfeit products should be reported to the FDA ‘s consumer complaint coordinator or to the criminal activity division.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As an endocrinologist, I treat many patients who have diabetes, obesity, or both. Antiobesity medications, particularly the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), are our first support tools when nutrition and physical activity aren’t enough. With the holidays upon us, here are five tips that I often share with my patients who are on GLP-1 RAs and similar medications.

1. Be mindful of fullness cues. 

GLP-1 RAs increase satiety; they help patients feel fuller sooner within a meal and longer in between meals. This means consuming the “usual” at a holiday gathering makes them feel as if they ate too much, and often this will result in more side effects, such as nausea and reflux.

Patient tip: A good rule of thumb is to anticipate feeling full with half of your usual portion. Start with half a plate and reassess your hunger level after finishing.

2. Distinguish between hunger and “food noise.”

Ask your patients, “Do you ever find yourself eating even when you’re not hungry?” Many people eat because of emotions (eg, stress, anxiety, happiness), social situations, or cultural expectations. This type of food consumption is what scientists call “hedonic food intake” and may be driven by the “food noise” that patients describe as persistent thoughts about food in the absence of physiologic hunger. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) has been found to reduce cravings, though other research has shown that emotional eating may blunt the effect of GLP-1 RAs.

Patient tip: Recognize when you might be seeking food for reasons other than hunger, and try a different way to address the cue (eg, chat with a friend or family member, go for a walk).

3. Be careful with alcohol.

GLP-1 RAs are being researched as potential treatments for alcohol use disorder. Many patients report less interest in alcohol and a lower tolerance to alcohol when they are taking a GLP-1 RA. Additionally, GLP-1 RAs may be a risk factor for pancreatitis, which can be caused by consuming too much alcohol.

Patient tip: The standard recommendation remains true: If drinking alcohol, limit to one to two servings per day, but also know that reduced intake or interest is normal when taking a GLP-1 RA.

4. Be aware of sickness vs side effects.

With holiday travel and the winter season, it is common for people to catch a cold or a stomach bug. Symptoms of common illnesses might include fatigue, loss of appetite, or diarrhea. These symptoms overlap with side effects of antiobesity medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.

Patient tip: If you are experiencing constitutional or gastrointestinal symptoms due to illness, speak with your board-certified obesity medicine doctor, who may recommend a temporary medication adjustment to avoid excess side effects.

5. Stay strong against weight stigma.

The holiday season can be a stressful time, especially as patients are reconnecting with people who have not been a part of their health or weight loss journey. Unfortunately, weight bias and weight stigma remain rampant. Many people don’t understand the biology of obesity and refuse to accept the necessity of medical treatment. They may be surrounded by opinions, often louder and less informed.

Patient tip: Remember that obesity is a medical disease. Tell your nosy cousin that it’s a private health matter and that your decisions are your own.
 

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed financial relationships with Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) visits by adults with diabetes increased by more than 25% since 2012, with the highest rates among Blacks and those aged over 65 years, a new data brief from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics shows.

In 2021, diabetes was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, according to the brief, published online on December 19, 2023. Its frequency is increasing in young people, and increasing age is a risk factor for hospitalization.

The latest data show that in 2020-2021, the overall annual ED visit rate was 72.2 visits per 1000 adults with diabetes, with no significant difference in terms of sex (75.1 visits per 1000 women vs 69.1 visits per 1000 men). By race/ethnicity, Blacks had the highest rates, at 135.5 visits per 1000 adults, followed by Whites (69.9) and Hispanics (52.3). The rates increased with age for both women and men, and among the three race/ethnic groups.

Comorbidities Count

The most ED visits were made by patients with diabetes and two to four other chronic conditions (541.4 visits per 1000 visits). Rates for patients without other chronic conditions were the lowest (90.2).

Among individuals with diabetes aged 18-44 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (402.0) and lowest among those with five or more other conditions (93.8).

Among patients aged 45-64 years, ED visit rates were the highest for those with two to four other chronic conditions (526.4) and lowest for those without other conditions (87.7). In the 65 years and older group, rates were the highest for individuals with two to four other chronic conditions (605.2), followed by five or more conditions (217.7), one other condition (140.6), and no other conditions (36.5).

Notably, the ED visit rates for those with two to four or five or more other chronic conditions increased with age, whereas visits for those with no other chronic conditions or one other condition decreased with age.

Decade-Long Trend

ED visit rates among adults with diabetes increased throughout the past decade, from 48.6 visits per 1000 adults in 2012 to 74.9 per 1000 adults in 2021. Rates for those aged 65 and older were higher than all other age groups, increasing from 113.4 to 156.8. Increases were also seen among those aged 45-64 years (53.1 in 2012 to 89.2 in 2021) and 18-44 (20.9 in 2012 to 26.4 in 2016, then plateauing from 2016-2021).

Data are based on a sample of 4051 ED visits, representing about 18,238,000 average annual visits made by adults with diabetes to nonfederal, general, and short-stay hospitals during 2020-2021.

Taken together, these most recent estimates “show an increasing trend in rates by adults with diabetes in the ED setting,” the authors concluded.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes, with and without overweight or obesity, according to a new analysis.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs were associated with decreased risk compared with other antidiabetic treatments, including insulin, metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.

More profound effects were seen in patients with overweight or obesity, “suggesting a potential protective effect against CRC partially mediated by weight loss and other mechanisms related to weight loss,” Lindsey Wang, an undergraduate student at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology.
 

Testing Treatments

GLP-1 RAs, usually given by injection, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat type 2 diabetes. They can lower blood sugar levels, improve insulin sensitivity, and help patients manage their weight.

Diabetes, overweight, and obesity are known risk factors for CRC and make prognosis worse. Ms. Wang and colleagues hypothesized that GLP-1 RAs might reduce CRC risk compared with other antidiabetics, including metformin and insulin, which have also been shown to reduce CRC risk.

Using a national database of more than 101 million electronic health records, Ms. Wang and colleagues conducted a population-based study of more than 1.2 million patients who had medical encounters for type 2 diabetes and were subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications between 2005 and 2019. The patients had no prior antidiabetic medication use nor CRC diagnosis.

The researchers analyzed the effects of GLP-1 RAs on CRC incidence compared with the other prescribed antidiabetic drugs, matching for demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, preexisting medical conditions, family and personal history of cancers and colonic polyps, lifestyle factors, and procedures such as colonoscopy.

During a 15-year follow-up, GLP-1 RAs were associated with decreased risk for CRC compared with insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56), metformin (HR, 0.75), SGLT2 inhibitors (HR, 0.77), sulfonylureas (HR, 0.82), and thiazolidinediones (HR, 0.82) in the overall study population.

For instance, among 22,572 patients who took insulin, 167 cases of CRC occurred, compared with 94 cases among the matched GLP-1 RA cohort. Among 18,518 patients who took metformin, 153 cases of CRC occurred compared with 96 cases among the matched GLP-1 RA cohort.

GLP-1 RAs also were associated with lower but not statistically significant risk than alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (HR, 0.59) and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (HR, 0.93).

In patients with overweight or obesity, GLP-1 RAs were associated with a lower risk for CRC than most of the other antidiabetics, including insulin (HR, 0.5), metformin (HR, 0.58), SGLT2 inhibitors (HR, 0.68), sulfonylureas (HR, 0.63), thiazolidinediones (HR, 0.73), and DPP-4 inhibitors (HR, 0.77).

Consistent findings were observed in women and men.

“Our results clearly demonstrate that GLP-1 RAs are significantly more effective than popular antidiabetic drugs, such as metformin or insulin, at preventing the development of CRC,” said Nathan Berger, MD, co-lead researcher, professor of experimental medicine, and member of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center.
 

Targets for Future Research

Study limitations include potential unmeasured or uncontrolled confounders, self-selection, reverse causality, and other biases involved in observational studies, the research team noted.

Further research is warranted to investigate the effects in patients with prior antidiabetic treatments, underlying mechanisms, potential variation in effects among different GLP-1 RAs, and the potential of GLP-1 RAs to reduce the risks for other obesity-associated cancers, the researchers wrote.

“To our knowledge, this is the first indication this popular weight loss and antidiabetic class of drugs reduces incidence of CRC, relative to other antidiabetic agents,” said Rong Xu, PhD, co-lead researcher, professor of medicine, and member of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, American Cancer Society, Landon Foundation-American Association for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health Director’s New Innovator Award Program, National Institute on Aging, and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Several authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes, with and without overweight or obesity, according to a new analysis.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs were associated with decreased risk compared with other antidiabetic treatments, including insulin, metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.

More profound effects were seen in patients with overweight or obesity, “suggesting a potential protective effect against CRC partially mediated by weight loss and other mechanisms related to weight loss,” Lindsey Wang, an undergraduate student at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology.
 

Testing Treatments

GLP-1 RAs, usually given by injection, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat type 2 diabetes. They can lower blood sugar levels, improve insulin sensitivity, and help patients manage their weight.

Diabetes, overweight, and obesity are known risk factors for CRC and make prognosis worse. Ms. Wang and colleagues hypothesized that GLP-1 RAs might reduce CRC risk compared with other antidiabetics, including metformin and insulin, which have also been shown to reduce CRC risk.

Using a national database of more than 101 million electronic health records, Ms. Wang and colleagues conducted a population-based study of more than 1.2 million patients who had medical encounters for type 2 diabetes and were subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications between 2005 and 2019. The patients had no prior antidiabetic medication use nor CRC diagnosis.

The researchers analyzed the effects of GLP-1 RAs on CRC incidence compared with the other prescribed antidiabetic drugs, matching for demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, preexisting medical conditions, family and personal history of cancers and colonic polyps, lifestyle factors, and procedures such as colonoscopy.

During a 15-year follow-up, GLP-1 RAs were associated with decreased risk for CRC compared with insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56), metformin (HR, 0.75), SGLT2 inhibitors (HR, 0.77), sulfonylureas (HR, 0.82), and thiazolidinediones (HR, 0.82) in the overall study population.

For instance, among 22,572 patients who took insulin, 167 cases of CRC occurred, compared with 94 cases among the matched GLP-1 RA cohort. Among 18,518 patients who took metformin, 153 cases of CRC occurred compared with 96 cases among the matched GLP-1 RA cohort.

GLP-1 RAs also were associated with lower but not statistically significant risk than alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (HR, 0.59) and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (HR, 0.93).

In patients with overweight or obesity, GLP-1 RAs were associated with a lower risk for CRC than most of the other antidiabetics, including insulin (HR, 0.5), metformin (HR, 0.58), SGLT2 inhibitors (HR, 0.68), sulfonylureas (HR, 0.63), thiazolidinediones (HR, 0.73), and DPP-4 inhibitors (HR, 0.77).

Consistent findings were observed in women and men.

“Our results clearly demonstrate that GLP-1 RAs are significantly more effective than popular antidiabetic drugs, such as metformin or insulin, at preventing the development of CRC,” said Nathan Berger, MD, co-lead researcher, professor of experimental medicine, and member of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center.
 

Targets for Future Research

Study limitations include potential unmeasured or uncontrolled confounders, self-selection, reverse causality, and other biases involved in observational studies, the research team noted.

Further research is warranted to investigate the effects in patients with prior antidiabetic treatments, underlying mechanisms, potential variation in effects among different GLP-1 RAs, and the potential of GLP-1 RAs to reduce the risks for other obesity-associated cancers, the researchers wrote.

“To our knowledge, this is the first indication this popular weight loss and antidiabetic class of drugs reduces incidence of CRC, relative to other antidiabetic agents,” said Rong Xu, PhD, co-lead researcher, professor of medicine, and member of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, American Cancer Society, Landon Foundation-American Association for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health Director’s New Innovator Award Program, National Institute on Aging, and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Several authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with type 2 diabetes, with and without overweight or obesity, according to a new analysis.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs were associated with decreased risk compared with other antidiabetic treatments, including insulin, metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidinediones.

More profound effects were seen in patients with overweight or obesity, “suggesting a potential protective effect against CRC partially mediated by weight loss and other mechanisms related to weight loss,” Lindsey Wang, an undergraduate student at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues wrote in JAMA Oncology.
 

Testing Treatments

GLP-1 RAs, usually given by injection, are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat type 2 diabetes. They can lower blood sugar levels, improve insulin sensitivity, and help patients manage their weight.

Diabetes, overweight, and obesity are known risk factors for CRC and make prognosis worse. Ms. Wang and colleagues hypothesized that GLP-1 RAs might reduce CRC risk compared with other antidiabetics, including metformin and insulin, which have also been shown to reduce CRC risk.

Using a national database of more than 101 million electronic health records, Ms. Wang and colleagues conducted a population-based study of more than 1.2 million patients who had medical encounters for type 2 diabetes and were subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications between 2005 and 2019. The patients had no prior antidiabetic medication use nor CRC diagnosis.

The researchers analyzed the effects of GLP-1 RAs on CRC incidence compared with the other prescribed antidiabetic drugs, matching for demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, preexisting medical conditions, family and personal history of cancers and colonic polyps, lifestyle factors, and procedures such as colonoscopy.

During a 15-year follow-up, GLP-1 RAs were associated with decreased risk for CRC compared with insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56), metformin (HR, 0.75), SGLT2 inhibitors (HR, 0.77), sulfonylureas (HR, 0.82), and thiazolidinediones (HR, 0.82) in the overall study population.

For instance, among 22,572 patients who took insulin, 167 cases of CRC occurred, compared with 94 cases among the matched GLP-1 RA cohort. Among 18,518 patients who took metformin, 153 cases of CRC occurred compared with 96 cases among the matched GLP-1 RA cohort.

GLP-1 RAs also were associated with lower but not statistically significant risk than alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (HR, 0.59) and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (HR, 0.93).

In patients with overweight or obesity, GLP-1 RAs were associated with a lower risk for CRC than most of the other antidiabetics, including insulin (HR, 0.5), metformin (HR, 0.58), SGLT2 inhibitors (HR, 0.68), sulfonylureas (HR, 0.63), thiazolidinediones (HR, 0.73), and DPP-4 inhibitors (HR, 0.77).

Consistent findings were observed in women and men.

“Our results clearly demonstrate that GLP-1 RAs are significantly more effective than popular antidiabetic drugs, such as metformin or insulin, at preventing the development of CRC,” said Nathan Berger, MD, co-lead researcher, professor of experimental medicine, and member of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center.
 

Targets for Future Research

Study limitations include potential unmeasured or uncontrolled confounders, self-selection, reverse causality, and other biases involved in observational studies, the research team noted.

Further research is warranted to investigate the effects in patients with prior antidiabetic treatments, underlying mechanisms, potential variation in effects among different GLP-1 RAs, and the potential of GLP-1 RAs to reduce the risks for other obesity-associated cancers, the researchers wrote.

“To our knowledge, this is the first indication this popular weight loss and antidiabetic class of drugs reduces incidence of CRC, relative to other antidiabetic agents,” said Rong Xu, PhD, co-lead researcher, professor of medicine, and member of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, American Cancer Society, Landon Foundation-American Association for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health Director’s New Innovator Award Program, National Institute on Aging, and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Several authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.