Diabetes

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

Young adults who developed type 2 diabetes as children often do not take medications to control blood pressure or cholesterol, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open. Researchers expressed alarm that young people who forgo these medications increase their chances of developing kidney disease or having a stroke.

“We’re learning more and more that those with youth onset [type 2 diabetes] really differ from those with adult onset: It looks like a more virulent form of the disease because kids are getting complications and comorbidities at much earlier ages and more severe levels,” said study author Paula Trief, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at State University of New York, Syracuse.

Participants in the new study were on average aged 26 years. They also had previously been part of the Treating Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth study, known as TODAY, which took place from 2004 to 2011. TODAY enrolled children between ages 10 and 17 years with type 2 diabetes who received either metformin, metformin plus rosiglitazone, or metformin plus a lifestyle intervention.

The study included extensive education and contact from medical professionals to the participants about managing diabetes.

“This cohort was followed a long time and they had a lot of support. It may be better than the real world where people haven’t had the history of this much attention,” said Lorraine Katz, MD, who specializes in endocrinology and diabetes at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Katz has enrolled participants in TODAY and published about medication adherence rates but was not part of the recent analysis.
 

Unannounced pill counts, addressing concerns about medication

The analysis, known as iCount, included 243 participants from the original TODAY study (159 girls) who had hypertension, neuropathy, or dyslipidemia that required ongoing medication. As the TODAY study was concluding between 2017 and 2019, researchers made unannounced phone calls to participants to request the numbers of pills they had prescribed, number of refills, and the refill date. Participants also counted aloud every pill in their possession twice.

Those phone calls continued for 3 consecutive months after iCount began and again at the same intervals 1 year later.

If the number of pills counted at a later time was at least 80% of the starting total, researchers considered this rate as low adherence. Anything less than 80% was considered high adherence.

“That’s kind of an arbitrary cutoff, but it’s one that’s used consistently in the literature” to measure medication adherence for many conditions including cancer and heart disease, Dr. Trief said. Unannounced calls to initiate pill counts were first used to understand how often people took medications for HIV, and this method was found to be a more reliable method than are self-reports.

Of 196 participants with hypertension or neuropathy, 157 (80.1%) had low adherence. And of the 146 people with high cholesterol, 137 (93.8%) had low adherence. Ninety-nine people with high cholesterol also had neuropathy or diabetes.

“This is new to the literature: We don’t really know as much about this age group,” because medication adherence studies of people who have had diabetes for more than a decade and are still in their 20s are rare, Dr. Katz said.

During the core TODAY study period, all medications were provided for free. In contrast, in the current study, participants had to obtain their prescriptions on their own. The researchers found that many participants who showed low adherence to blood pressure medications reported sometimes having trouble obtaining food (n = 62), struggling with securing stable housing (n = 47), or lacking reliable health care insurance (n = 28), all factors linked to medication adherence success, according to the analysis authors.

Researchers also assessed the impact of concerns that taking blood pressure medications may be harmful and found that people with these concerns were 37% less likely to maintain high adherence than others were by the 1-year follow-up point (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.96; P = .01).

To some extent, the reasons people avoid medications are understandable, according to pediatric endocrinologist Tamara Hannon, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis.

“Rather than taking a medicine to feel better, you’re taking one not to have a problem in the future: You might not feel blood pressure, you certainly don’t feel cholesterol,” Dr. Hannon, who was not involved in the analysis, said. “Scolding them or telling them you’re going to be sorry one day doesn’t generally work.”

Dr. Hannon added that education alone about the benefits of medications does not generally drive people to adherence but that adding reminders to their phone calendar when refills are due could help. Or, the clinician could reach out to a trusted person in the patient’s life and enlist their support in taking medications consistently.

Dr. Trief advised that clinicians should carve out time for people to express their concerns about medications rather than simply writing a prescription and sending them on their way and to ask patients open-ended questions.

“If you just say to people do you have any questions, they usually say, ‘no.’ ”

No disclosures were reported.

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

Citing the strong overlap between heart disease, kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, the American Heart Association has for the first time formally defined what they are calling cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

“This work was prompted by the fact that CKM syndrome leads to premature morbidity and mortality, primarily because of a higher burden of CVD,” writing committee chair Chiadi Ndumele, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“While CKM syndrome is a public health emergency, there is also great potential for improving CKM health in the population, with an increasing number of therapies that favorably impact metabolic risk factors, risk for adverse kidney events, or both, which also protect against CVD,” added Dr. Ndumele, director of obesity and cardiometabolic research in the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The AHA presidential advisory and accompanying scientific statement, which provides a synopsis of evidence for the science and clinical management of CKM, were published online in the journal Circulation.
 

CKM syndrome staging

According to the AHA, one in three U.S. adults have three or more risk factors that contribute to CVD, metabolic disorders, and/or kidney disease.

In addition to defining CKM syndrome, the advisory provides a “staging construct, to be used in both adults and youth, that reflects the progressive pathophysiology and risk within CKM syndrome, with therapeutic guidance tied to CKM stages,” Dr. Ndumele told this news organization.

The AHA outlines four stages of CKM syndrome:

Stage 0: At this stage, no CKM risk factors are present, and the goal is to prevent CKM syndrome (particularly unhealthy weight gain) by achieving and maintaining ideal health based on the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 recommendations. Adults in this stage should be screened every 3-5 years to assess lipids, blood pressure, and blood sugar.

Stage 1: At this stage, excess weight, abdominal obesity, or dysfunctional adipose tissue (clinically manifest as impaired glucose tolerance or prediabetes) is present without other metabolic risk factors or CVD. Management includes providing support for healthy lifestyle changes (healthy eating and regular physical activity), with a goal of at least 5% weight loss and addressing glucose intolerance if needed. Screening adults with stage 1 CKM every 2-3 years is advised to assess blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, and blood sugar.

Stage 2: At this stage, metabolic risk factors (hypertriglyceridemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, diabetes) and kidney disease are present. The goal is to address risk factors to prevent progression to CVD and kidney failure. Screening for stage 2 CKM syndrome aligns with AHA/ACC guidelines, which include yearly assessment of blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, blood sugar, and kidney function. More frequent kidney screening is recommended for individuals with increased risk of kidney failure based on kidney function assessments.

Stage 3: This stage describes individuals with subclinical CVD with metabolic risk factors or kidney disease or those at high predicted risk for CVD. The goal is to intensify efforts to prevent progression to symptomatic CVD and kidney failure. This may involve increasing or changing medications, and additional focus on lifestyle changes. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement in some adults is recommended to assess narrowing of the arteries when treatment decisions are unclear.

Stage 4: Individuals with stage 4 CKM syndrome have symptomatic CVD, excess body fat, metabolic risk factors, or kidney disease. Stage 4 CKM syndrome is divided into two subcategories: (4a) no kidney failure and (4b) kidney failure. In this stage, patients may have already had a myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke or may already have heart failure. They also may have additional CV conditions such as peripheral artery disease or atrial fibrillation. The goal of care is individualized treatment for CVD with consideration for CKM syndrome conditions.

The advisory also describes CKM syndrome regression, “an important concept and public health message in which people making healthy lifestyle changes and achieving weight loss may regress to lower CKM syndrome stages and a better state of health,” the AHA says in a news release.

They note that a “critical” next step is to update the pooled cohort equation (PCE) risk prediction algorithm to include measures of kidney function, type 2 diabetes control, and social determinants of health for a more comprehensive risk estimate.

The advisory also recommends risk calculator updates be expanded to assess risk in people as young as age 30 and to calculate both 10- and 30-year CVD risk.

“Clearly defining the patient with CKM syndrome, and providing new approaches for CKM syndrome staging and risk prediction, will help health care professionals to identify these individuals earlier and to provide timely, holistic, and patient-centered care,” Dr. Ndumele said.

This presidential advisory was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA . The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Citing the strong overlap between heart disease, kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, the American Heart Association has for the first time formally defined what they are calling cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

“This work was prompted by the fact that CKM syndrome leads to premature morbidity and mortality, primarily because of a higher burden of CVD,” writing committee chair Chiadi Ndumele, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“While CKM syndrome is a public health emergency, there is also great potential for improving CKM health in the population, with an increasing number of therapies that favorably impact metabolic risk factors, risk for adverse kidney events, or both, which also protect against CVD,” added Dr. Ndumele, director of obesity and cardiometabolic research in the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The AHA presidential advisory and accompanying scientific statement, which provides a synopsis of evidence for the science and clinical management of CKM, were published online in the journal Circulation.
 

CKM syndrome staging

According to the AHA, one in three U.S. adults have three or more risk factors that contribute to CVD, metabolic disorders, and/or kidney disease.

In addition to defining CKM syndrome, the advisory provides a “staging construct, to be used in both adults and youth, that reflects the progressive pathophysiology and risk within CKM syndrome, with therapeutic guidance tied to CKM stages,” Dr. Ndumele told this news organization.

The AHA outlines four stages of CKM syndrome:

Stage 0: At this stage, no CKM risk factors are present, and the goal is to prevent CKM syndrome (particularly unhealthy weight gain) by achieving and maintaining ideal health based on the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 recommendations. Adults in this stage should be screened every 3-5 years to assess lipids, blood pressure, and blood sugar.

Stage 1: At this stage, excess weight, abdominal obesity, or dysfunctional adipose tissue (clinically manifest as impaired glucose tolerance or prediabetes) is present without other metabolic risk factors or CVD. Management includes providing support for healthy lifestyle changes (healthy eating and regular physical activity), with a goal of at least 5% weight loss and addressing glucose intolerance if needed. Screening adults with stage 1 CKM every 2-3 years is advised to assess blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, and blood sugar.

Stage 2: At this stage, metabolic risk factors (hypertriglyceridemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, diabetes) and kidney disease are present. The goal is to address risk factors to prevent progression to CVD and kidney failure. Screening for stage 2 CKM syndrome aligns with AHA/ACC guidelines, which include yearly assessment of blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, blood sugar, and kidney function. More frequent kidney screening is recommended for individuals with increased risk of kidney failure based on kidney function assessments.

Stage 3: This stage describes individuals with subclinical CVD with metabolic risk factors or kidney disease or those at high predicted risk for CVD. The goal is to intensify efforts to prevent progression to symptomatic CVD and kidney failure. This may involve increasing or changing medications, and additional focus on lifestyle changes. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement in some adults is recommended to assess narrowing of the arteries when treatment decisions are unclear.

Stage 4: Individuals with stage 4 CKM syndrome have symptomatic CVD, excess body fat, metabolic risk factors, or kidney disease. Stage 4 CKM syndrome is divided into two subcategories: (4a) no kidney failure and (4b) kidney failure. In this stage, patients may have already had a myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke or may already have heart failure. They also may have additional CV conditions such as peripheral artery disease or atrial fibrillation. The goal of care is individualized treatment for CVD with consideration for CKM syndrome conditions.

The advisory also describes CKM syndrome regression, “an important concept and public health message in which people making healthy lifestyle changes and achieving weight loss may regress to lower CKM syndrome stages and a better state of health,” the AHA says in a news release.

They note that a “critical” next step is to update the pooled cohort equation (PCE) risk prediction algorithm to include measures of kidney function, type 2 diabetes control, and social determinants of health for a more comprehensive risk estimate.

The advisory also recommends risk calculator updates be expanded to assess risk in people as young as age 30 and to calculate both 10- and 30-year CVD risk.

“Clearly defining the patient with CKM syndrome, and providing new approaches for CKM syndrome staging and risk prediction, will help health care professionals to identify these individuals earlier and to provide timely, holistic, and patient-centered care,” Dr. Ndumele said.

This presidential advisory was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA . The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Citing the strong overlap between heart disease, kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, the American Heart Association has for the first time formally defined what they are calling cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

“This work was prompted by the fact that CKM syndrome leads to premature morbidity and mortality, primarily because of a higher burden of CVD,” writing committee chair Chiadi Ndumele, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“While CKM syndrome is a public health emergency, there is also great potential for improving CKM health in the population, with an increasing number of therapies that favorably impact metabolic risk factors, risk for adverse kidney events, or both, which also protect against CVD,” added Dr. Ndumele, director of obesity and cardiometabolic research in the division of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The AHA presidential advisory and accompanying scientific statement, which provides a synopsis of evidence for the science and clinical management of CKM, were published online in the journal Circulation.
 

CKM syndrome staging

According to the AHA, one in three U.S. adults have three or more risk factors that contribute to CVD, metabolic disorders, and/or kidney disease.

In addition to defining CKM syndrome, the advisory provides a “staging construct, to be used in both adults and youth, that reflects the progressive pathophysiology and risk within CKM syndrome, with therapeutic guidance tied to CKM stages,” Dr. Ndumele told this news organization.

The AHA outlines four stages of CKM syndrome:

Stage 0: At this stage, no CKM risk factors are present, and the goal is to prevent CKM syndrome (particularly unhealthy weight gain) by achieving and maintaining ideal health based on the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 recommendations. Adults in this stage should be screened every 3-5 years to assess lipids, blood pressure, and blood sugar.

Stage 1: At this stage, excess weight, abdominal obesity, or dysfunctional adipose tissue (clinically manifest as impaired glucose tolerance or prediabetes) is present without other metabolic risk factors or CVD. Management includes providing support for healthy lifestyle changes (healthy eating and regular physical activity), with a goal of at least 5% weight loss and addressing glucose intolerance if needed. Screening adults with stage 1 CKM every 2-3 years is advised to assess blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, and blood sugar.

Stage 2: At this stage, metabolic risk factors (hypertriglyceridemia, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, diabetes) and kidney disease are present. The goal is to address risk factors to prevent progression to CVD and kidney failure. Screening for stage 2 CKM syndrome aligns with AHA/ACC guidelines, which include yearly assessment of blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, blood sugar, and kidney function. More frequent kidney screening is recommended for individuals with increased risk of kidney failure based on kidney function assessments.

Stage 3: This stage describes individuals with subclinical CVD with metabolic risk factors or kidney disease or those at high predicted risk for CVD. The goal is to intensify efforts to prevent progression to symptomatic CVD and kidney failure. This may involve increasing or changing medications, and additional focus on lifestyle changes. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement in some adults is recommended to assess narrowing of the arteries when treatment decisions are unclear.

Stage 4: Individuals with stage 4 CKM syndrome have symptomatic CVD, excess body fat, metabolic risk factors, or kidney disease. Stage 4 CKM syndrome is divided into two subcategories: (4a) no kidney failure and (4b) kidney failure. In this stage, patients may have already had a myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke or may already have heart failure. They also may have additional CV conditions such as peripheral artery disease or atrial fibrillation. The goal of care is individualized treatment for CVD with consideration for CKM syndrome conditions.

The advisory also describes CKM syndrome regression, “an important concept and public health message in which people making healthy lifestyle changes and achieving weight loss may regress to lower CKM syndrome stages and a better state of health,” the AHA says in a news release.

They note that a “critical” next step is to update the pooled cohort equation (PCE) risk prediction algorithm to include measures of kidney function, type 2 diabetes control, and social determinants of health for a more comprehensive risk estimate.

The advisory also recommends risk calculator updates be expanded to assess risk in people as young as age 30 and to calculate both 10- and 30-year CVD risk.

“Clearly defining the patient with CKM syndrome, and providing new approaches for CKM syndrome staging and risk prediction, will help health care professionals to identify these individuals earlier and to provide timely, holistic, and patient-centered care,” Dr. Ndumele said.

This presidential advisory was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA . The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) significantly raises the risk for cardiovascular, metabolic, oncologic, and other outcomes, a new meta-analysis suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies to investigate longitudinal clinical outcomes associated with MASLD, previously known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
• They identified 129 original studies that evaluated the longitudinal risks for incident clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD vs those without the disease.
• Investigators calculated pooled risk estimates for clinical outcomes in patients with MASLD and those without MASLD, with MASLD being diagnosed by imaging, biopsy, blood tests, or ICD codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• MASLD was associated with a significant increased risk for cardiovascular disease outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.43), metabolic outcomes such as incident hypertension (HR, 1.75), prediabetes (HR, 1.69), diabetes (HR, 2.56), metabolic syndrome (HR, 2.57), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.38), and various liver-related outcomes (HR, 3.92).
• Patients with advanced MASLD had a significantly greater risk (P = .02) of developing diabetes than did their peers with less severe MASLD (HR, 1.63), compared with persons without MASLD.
• MASLD was also associated with all cancers (HR, 1.54); the highest risk was seen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.37).
• Subgroup analyses stratified by sex found no significant differences in the risks observed between men and women with MASLD.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is imperative to understand that MASLD is a complex and multifaceted condition that requires a comprehensive approach to recognition and treatment beyond that of the hepatologist alone,” the authors wrote. “The growing prevalence of MASLD will remain a major global health threat that requires effective disease management frameworks to be put in place.”

SOURCE:

The study, with co–first authors Kai En Chan and Elden Yen Hng Ong, National University of Singapore, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The results depend on the validity of the original studies, and residual confounding factors may have biased the reported results. The study is also limited in its inclusion of large population-based studies using ICD codes that may result in misclassification bias. There was no examination of longitudinal outcomes in patients with histologically confirmed MASLD.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no funding. Some authors reported research support, consulting fees, or stock options from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Respiratory tract infections and asthma are 10 times more prevalent at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with matched controls without a diagnosis, shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.

Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.

Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.

“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”

Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.

Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”

But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
 

Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis

Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.

The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”

By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.

Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.

In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”

“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.

In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.

These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.

After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

After being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2021, British teenager Johnny Bailey felt isolated. That’s when he turned to social media, where he found others living with type 1 diabetes. He began to share his experience and now has more than 329,000 followers on his TikTok account, where he regularly posts videos.

These include short clips of him demonstrating how he changes his FreeStyle Libre sensor for his flash glucose monitor. In the videos, Johnny appropriately places his sensor on the back of his arm with background music, makes facial expressions, and transforms a dreaded diabetes-related task into an experience that appears fun and entertaining. In the limited videos I was able to review, he follows all the appropriate steps for sensor placement.

Many youths living with type 1 diabetes struggle with living with a chronic medical condition. Because type 1 diabetes is a rare condition, affecting about 1 in 500 children in the United States, many youth may not meet anyone else their age with type 1 diabetes through school, social events, or extracurricular activities.

For adolescents with intensively managed conditions like type 1 diabetes, this can present numerous psychosocial challenges – specifically, many youth experience shame or stigma associated with managing type 1 diabetes.

Diabetes-specific tasks may include wearing an insulin pump, monitoring blood glucose with finger pricks or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), giving injections of insulin before meals and snacks, adjusting times for meals and snacks based on metabolic needs, waking up in the middle of the night to treat high or low blood glucose – the list goes on and on.

One study estimated that the average time it takes a child with type 1 diabetes to perform diabetes-specific tasks is over 5 hours per day.

Although much of this diabetes management time is spent by parents, as children get older and become teenagers, they are gradually transitioning to taking on more of this responsibility themselves. Wearing diabetes technology (insulin pumps and CGMs) can draw unwanted attention, leading to diabetes-specific body image concerns. Kids may also have to excuse themselves from an activity to treat a low or high blood glucose, creating uncomfortable situations when others inquire about why the activity was interrupted. As a result, many youths will avoid managing their diabetes properly to avoid drawing unwanted attention, consequently put their health at risk.

So, for many youths with type 1 diabetes, watching Johnny Bailey, or others on social media, may help them feel more comfortable. Those who are afraid of placing their glucose sensor owing to fear of pain may be reassured by seeing Johnny placing his sensor with a smile on his face. Some of his content also highlights other stigmatizing situations that teens may face, for example someone with a judgmental look questioning why he needed to give an insulin injection here.

This highlights an important concept – that people with type 1 diabetes may face criticism when dosing insulin in public, but it doesn’t mean they should feel forced to manage diabetes in private unless they choose to. Johnny is an inspirational individual who has bravely taken his type 1 diabetes experiences and used his creative skills to make these seemingly boring health-related tasks fun, interesting, and accessible.

Social media has become an outlet for people with type 1 diabetes to connect with others who can relate to their experiences.

However, there’s another side to consider. Although social media may provide a great source of support for youth, it may also adversely affect mental health. Just as quickly as social media outlets have grown, so has concern over excessive social media use and its impact on adolescents’ mental health. There’s a growing body of literature that describes the negative mental health aspects related to social media use.

Some adolescents struggling to manage type 1 diabetes may feel worse when seeing others thrive on social media, which has the potential to worsen stigma and shame. Youth may wonder how someone else is able to manage their type 1 diabetes so well when they are facing so many challenges.

Short videos on social media provide an incomplete picture of living with type 1 diabetes – just a glimpse into others’ lives, and only the parts that they want others to see. Managing a chronic condition can’t be fully represented in 10-second videos. And if youths choose to post their type 1 diabetes experiences on social media, they also risk receiving backlash or criticism, which can negatively their impact mental health in return.

Furthermore, the content being posted may not always be accurate or educational, leading to the potential for some youth to misunderstand type 1 diabetes.

Although I wouldn’t discourage youth with type 1 diabetes from engaging on social media and viewing diabetes-related content, they need to know that social media is flooded with misinformation. Creating an open space for youth to ask their clinicians questions about type 1 diabetes–related topics they view on social media is vital to ensuring they are viewing accurate information, so they are able to continue to manage their diabetes safely.

As a pediatric endocrinologist, I sometimes share resources on social media with patients if I believe it will help them cope with their type 1 diabetes diagnosis and management. I have had numerous patients – many of whom have struggled to accept their diagnosis – mention with joy and excitement that they were following an organization addressing type 1 diabetes on social media.

When making suggestions, I may refer them to The Diabetes Link, an organization with resources for young adults with type 1 diabetes that creates a space to connect with other young adults with type 1 diabetes. diaTribe is another organization created and led by people with diabetes that has a plethora of resources and provides evidence-based education for patients. I have also shared Project 50-in-50, which highlights two individuals with type 1 diabetes hiking the highest peak in each state in less than 50 days. Being able to see type 1 diabetes in a positive light is a huge step toward a more positive outlook on diabetes management.

Dr. Nally is an assistant professor, department of pediatrics, and a pediatric endocrinologist, division of pediatric endocrinology, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. She reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and the National Institutes of Health.

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

After being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2021, British teenager Johnny Bailey felt isolated. That’s when he turned to social media, where he found others living with type 1 diabetes. He began to share his experience and now has more than 329,000 followers on his TikTok account, where he regularly posts videos.

These include short clips of him demonstrating how he changes his FreeStyle Libre sensor for his flash glucose monitor. In the videos, Johnny appropriately places his sensor on the back of his arm with background music, makes facial expressions, and transforms a dreaded diabetes-related task into an experience that appears fun and entertaining. In the limited videos I was able to review, he follows all the appropriate steps for sensor placement.

Many youths living with type 1 diabetes struggle with living with a chronic medical condition. Because type 1 diabetes is a rare condition, affecting about 1 in 500 children in the United States, many youth may not meet anyone else their age with type 1 diabetes through school, social events, or extracurricular activities.

For adolescents with intensively managed conditions like type 1 diabetes, this can present numerous psychosocial challenges – specifically, many youth experience shame or stigma associated with managing type 1 diabetes.

Diabetes-specific tasks may include wearing an insulin pump, monitoring blood glucose with finger pricks or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), giving injections of insulin before meals and snacks, adjusting times for meals and snacks based on metabolic needs, waking up in the middle of the night to treat high or low blood glucose – the list goes on and on.

One study estimated that the average time it takes a child with type 1 diabetes to perform diabetes-specific tasks is over 5 hours per day.

Although much of this diabetes management time is spent by parents, as children get older and become teenagers, they are gradually transitioning to taking on more of this responsibility themselves. Wearing diabetes technology (insulin pumps and CGMs) can draw unwanted attention, leading to diabetes-specific body image concerns. Kids may also have to excuse themselves from an activity to treat a low or high blood glucose, creating uncomfortable situations when others inquire about why the activity was interrupted. As a result, many youths will avoid managing their diabetes properly to avoid drawing unwanted attention, consequently put their health at risk.

So, for many youths with type 1 diabetes, watching Johnny Bailey, or others on social media, may help them feel more comfortable. Those who are afraid of placing their glucose sensor owing to fear of pain may be reassured by seeing Johnny placing his sensor with a smile on his face. Some of his content also highlights other stigmatizing situations that teens may face, for example someone with a judgmental look questioning why he needed to give an insulin injection here.

This highlights an important concept – that people with type 1 diabetes may face criticism when dosing insulin in public, but it doesn’t mean they should feel forced to manage diabetes in private unless they choose to. Johnny is an inspirational individual who has bravely taken his type 1 diabetes experiences and used his creative skills to make these seemingly boring health-related tasks fun, interesting, and accessible.

Social media has become an outlet for people with type 1 diabetes to connect with others who can relate to their experiences.

However, there’s another side to consider. Although social media may provide a great source of support for youth, it may also adversely affect mental health. Just as quickly as social media outlets have grown, so has concern over excessive social media use and its impact on adolescents’ mental health. There’s a growing body of literature that describes the negative mental health aspects related to social media use.

Some adolescents struggling to manage type 1 diabetes may feel worse when seeing others thrive on social media, which has the potential to worsen stigma and shame. Youth may wonder how someone else is able to manage their type 1 diabetes so well when they are facing so many challenges.

Short videos on social media provide an incomplete picture of living with type 1 diabetes – just a glimpse into others’ lives, and only the parts that they want others to see. Managing a chronic condition can’t be fully represented in 10-second videos. And if youths choose to post their type 1 diabetes experiences on social media, they also risk receiving backlash or criticism, which can negatively their impact mental health in return.

Furthermore, the content being posted may not always be accurate or educational, leading to the potential for some youth to misunderstand type 1 diabetes.

Although I wouldn’t discourage youth with type 1 diabetes from engaging on social media and viewing diabetes-related content, they need to know that social media is flooded with misinformation. Creating an open space for youth to ask their clinicians questions about type 1 diabetes–related topics they view on social media is vital to ensuring they are viewing accurate information, so they are able to continue to manage their diabetes safely.

As a pediatric endocrinologist, I sometimes share resources on social media with patients if I believe it will help them cope with their type 1 diabetes diagnosis and management. I have had numerous patients – many of whom have struggled to accept their diagnosis – mention with joy and excitement that they were following an organization addressing type 1 diabetes on social media.

When making suggestions, I may refer them to The Diabetes Link, an organization with resources for young adults with type 1 diabetes that creates a space to connect with other young adults with type 1 diabetes. diaTribe is another organization created and led by people with diabetes that has a plethora of resources and provides evidence-based education for patients. I have also shared Project 50-in-50, which highlights two individuals with type 1 diabetes hiking the highest peak in each state in less than 50 days. Being able to see type 1 diabetes in a positive light is a huge step toward a more positive outlook on diabetes management.

Dr. Nally is an assistant professor, department of pediatrics, and a pediatric endocrinologist, division of pediatric endocrinology, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. She reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and the National Institutes of Health.

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

After being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 2021, British teenager Johnny Bailey felt isolated. That’s when he turned to social media, where he found others living with type 1 diabetes. He began to share his experience and now has more than 329,000 followers on his TikTok account, where he regularly posts videos.

These include short clips of him demonstrating how he changes his FreeStyle Libre sensor for his flash glucose monitor. In the videos, Johnny appropriately places his sensor on the back of his arm with background music, makes facial expressions, and transforms a dreaded diabetes-related task into an experience that appears fun and entertaining. In the limited videos I was able to review, he follows all the appropriate steps for sensor placement.

Many youths living with type 1 diabetes struggle with living with a chronic medical condition. Because type 1 diabetes is a rare condition, affecting about 1 in 500 children in the United States, many youth may not meet anyone else their age with type 1 diabetes through school, social events, or extracurricular activities.

For adolescents with intensively managed conditions like type 1 diabetes, this can present numerous psychosocial challenges – specifically, many youth experience shame or stigma associated with managing type 1 diabetes.

Diabetes-specific tasks may include wearing an insulin pump, monitoring blood glucose with finger pricks or a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), giving injections of insulin before meals and snacks, adjusting times for meals and snacks based on metabolic needs, waking up in the middle of the night to treat high or low blood glucose – the list goes on and on.

One study estimated that the average time it takes a child with type 1 diabetes to perform diabetes-specific tasks is over 5 hours per day.

Although much of this diabetes management time is spent by parents, as children get older and become teenagers, they are gradually transitioning to taking on more of this responsibility themselves. Wearing diabetes technology (insulin pumps and CGMs) can draw unwanted attention, leading to diabetes-specific body image concerns. Kids may also have to excuse themselves from an activity to treat a low or high blood glucose, creating uncomfortable situations when others inquire about why the activity was interrupted. As a result, many youths will avoid managing their diabetes properly to avoid drawing unwanted attention, consequently put their health at risk.

So, for many youths with type 1 diabetes, watching Johnny Bailey, or others on social media, may help them feel more comfortable. Those who are afraid of placing their glucose sensor owing to fear of pain may be reassured by seeing Johnny placing his sensor with a smile on his face. Some of his content also highlights other stigmatizing situations that teens may face, for example someone with a judgmental look questioning why he needed to give an insulin injection here.

This highlights an important concept – that people with type 1 diabetes may face criticism when dosing insulin in public, but it doesn’t mean they should feel forced to manage diabetes in private unless they choose to. Johnny is an inspirational individual who has bravely taken his type 1 diabetes experiences and used his creative skills to make these seemingly boring health-related tasks fun, interesting, and accessible.

Social media has become an outlet for people with type 1 diabetes to connect with others who can relate to their experiences.

However, there’s another side to consider. Although social media may provide a great source of support for youth, it may also adversely affect mental health. Just as quickly as social media outlets have grown, so has concern over excessive social media use and its impact on adolescents’ mental health. There’s a growing body of literature that describes the negative mental health aspects related to social media use.

Some adolescents struggling to manage type 1 diabetes may feel worse when seeing others thrive on social media, which has the potential to worsen stigma and shame. Youth may wonder how someone else is able to manage their type 1 diabetes so well when they are facing so many challenges.

Short videos on social media provide an incomplete picture of living with type 1 diabetes – just a glimpse into others’ lives, and only the parts that they want others to see. Managing a chronic condition can’t be fully represented in 10-second videos. And if youths choose to post their type 1 diabetes experiences on social media, they also risk receiving backlash or criticism, which can negatively their impact mental health in return.

Furthermore, the content being posted may not always be accurate or educational, leading to the potential for some youth to misunderstand type 1 diabetes.

Although I wouldn’t discourage youth with type 1 diabetes from engaging on social media and viewing diabetes-related content, they need to know that social media is flooded with misinformation. Creating an open space for youth to ask their clinicians questions about type 1 diabetes–related topics they view on social media is vital to ensuring they are viewing accurate information, so they are able to continue to manage their diabetes safely.

As a pediatric endocrinologist, I sometimes share resources on social media with patients if I believe it will help them cope with their type 1 diabetes diagnosis and management. I have had numerous patients – many of whom have struggled to accept their diagnosis – mention with joy and excitement that they were following an organization addressing type 1 diabetes on social media.

When making suggestions, I may refer them to The Diabetes Link, an organization with resources for young adults with type 1 diabetes that creates a space to connect with other young adults with type 1 diabetes. diaTribe is another organization created and led by people with diabetes that has a plethora of resources and provides evidence-based education for patients. I have also shared Project 50-in-50, which highlights two individuals with type 1 diabetes hiking the highest peak in each state in less than 50 days. Being able to see type 1 diabetes in a positive light is a huge step toward a more positive outlook on diabetes management.

Dr. Nally is an assistant professor, department of pediatrics, and a pediatric endocrinologist, division of pediatric endocrinology, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. She reported conflicts of interest with Medtronic and the National Institutes of Health.

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

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

In this issue: 

• Limb Loss and Prostheses
• Neurology
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Alzheimer's and Dementia
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Migraine and Headache
• Cardiology
• Mental Health
  • Depression
  • Opioid Use Disorder
  • PTSD and Psychedelic Treatments
  • Homelessness
  • Eating Disorders
• Diabetes
• Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Respiratory illnesses
• Women's Health
  • Access to Care
  • Infertility
  • Pregnancy
• HPV and Related Cancers

In this issue: 

• Limb Loss and Prostheses
• Neurology
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Alzheimer's and Dementia
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Migraine and Headache
• Cardiology
• Mental Health
  • Depression
  • Opioid Use Disorder
  • PTSD and Psychedelic Treatments
  • Homelessness
  • Eating Disorders
• Diabetes
• Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Respiratory illnesses
• Women's Health
  • Access to Care
  • Infertility
  • Pregnancy
• HPV and Related Cancers

In this issue: 

• Limb Loss and Prostheses
• Neurology
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Alzheimer's and Dementia
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Migraine and Headache
• Cardiology
• Mental Health
  • Depression
  • Opioid Use Disorder
  • PTSD and Psychedelic Treatments
  • Homelessness
  • Eating Disorders
• Diabetes
• Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Respiratory illnesses
• Women's Health
  • Access to Care
  • Infertility
  • Pregnancy
• HPV and Related Cancers