Diabetes

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Click to read more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2023.

Click to read more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2023.

Click to read more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2023.

Semaglutide and liraglutide are glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as subcutaneous injections for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Both are recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) as first-line options for patients with concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease and exert therapeutic effect via incretin-like mechanisms.¹ These agents lower blood glucose levels by stimulating insulin release, increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin, and inhibiting inappropriate glucagon secretion.^2,3 They also slow gastric emptying, resulting in decreased appetite and potential weight loss.⁴

The SUSTAIN (1-7) trials concluded that semaglutide presented an equivalent safety profile and greater efficacy compared with other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide.² The SUSTAIN-10 open-label, head-to-head trial evaluating 1 mg semaglutide once weekly vs 1.2 mg liraglutide daily concluded that semaglutide was superior in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and body weight reduction compared with liraglutide, with slightly increased gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs).⁵ Similar to the LEADER trial assessing liraglutide, SUSTAIN-6 evaluated semaglutide in patients at increased CV risk and found that compared with placebo, semaglutide decreased rates of serious CV events, such as CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and were similar to the CV outcomes in the LEADER trial.^2,6 Although initial results of the SUSTAIN-6 trial were thought to be nearly equivalent to the LEADER trial, analyses later published comparing both trials noted that semaglutide had more potent HbA_1c lowering and weight loss benefit when compared with liraglutide.^2,6 The cardioprotective outcomes of SUSTAIN-6 qualified semaglutide for inclusion in the current ADA Standards of Medical Care recommendations for CV risk reduction.^6,7 However, despite the CV safety profile and efficacy associated with semaglutide, the SUSTAIN-6 trial noted an increased risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) complications in 50 of 1648 patients (3%) treated with semaglutide compared with 29 of 1649 (1.8%) who received placebo (P = .02; hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.78).⁶ Of the 79 total patients who experienced retinopathy complications, 66 had retinopathy at baseline (42 of 50 [84%]) in the semaglutide group; 24 of 29 [83%] in the placebo group).⁶ Worsening of DR became one of the most notable AEs of semaglutide evaluated in clinical trials. This further deemed the effect as a warning in the semaglutide package insert to assist clinicians with treatment decisions.

As part of a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Lost Opportunity Cost Savings Initiative, which encompasses administrative efforts to promote more cost-effective yet safe and efficacious therapy options for veterans, the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, converted a portion of patients with T2DM established on liraglutide to semaglutide. The 30-day supply cost of the 2-pack liraglutide 6 mg/mL (3 mL) injection pens for the MEDVAMC was $197.64. The 30-day supply cost for the singular multidose semaglutide 0.5 mg/0.375 mL (1.5 mL) injection pen was $115.15. Cost savings for the MEDVAMC facility were initially estimated to reach $642,522.

The subset of patients converted had to have undergone teleretinal imaging and not have a diagnosis of nonproliferative DR (NPDR), proliferative DR (PDR), or PDR with or without diabetic macular edema. These recommendations excluding various forms of retinopathy were implemented per local institution guidance supporting clinical data from the SUSTAIN trials. Patients diagnosed with these conditions were continued on liraglutide due to an increased risk of DR complications associated with semaglutide.

In the fall of 2021, there was also a standing list of patients on liraglutide who were not converted due to a lack of teleretinal imaging. As a result, there was potential for a quality improvement (QI) intervention to target this patient population, which could result in further cost savings for MEDVAMC and improved glycemic control because of increased conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. The purpose of this project was to perform a QI assessment on this subset of patients both initially converted from liraglutide to semaglutide, and those who were yet to be converted due to a lack of teleretinal imaging to determine the impact on glycemic control and cost savings.

Methods

This QI project was a single-center, prospective cohort study with a retrospective chart review of veterans with T2DM converted from liraglutide to semaglutide at the MEDVAMC. Patient data were collected from the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) between March 1, 2021, and November 30, 2021. An initial subset of patients was converted to semaglutide in March and April 2021. Patients initially excluded underwent a second chart review to determine whether they truly met exclusion criteria. Patients who did not have a definitive diagnosis of NPDR or PDR, those due for updated teleretinal imaging, as well as those with updated teleretinal imaging that excluded NPDR or PDR were targeted for clinician education interventions.

Following this intervention, a subset of patients with negative DR findings were converted from liraglutide to semaglutide. Primary care and endocrinology clinicians were notified that patients who met the criteria should be referred for teleretinal imaging if no updated results were present or that patients were eligible for semaglutide conversion based on negative findings. Both patients who were initially converted as well as those converted following education were included for data collection/analysis of glycemic control via HbA_1c and blood glucose levels.

Cost savings were evaluated using outpatient pharmacy procurement pricing data. This project was approved by the MEDVAMC Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs Office.

Participants

Patients included in the study were adults aged ≥ 18 years with T2DM, converted from liraglutide 0.6 and 1.2 mg daily to semaglutide 0.25 mg weekly (titrated to 0.5 mg weekly after 4 weeks), and had an active prescription for semaglutide, with or without insulin or other oral antihyperglycemics. Patients with NPDR or PDR, type 1 DM, no HbA_1c data, no filled semaglutide prescriptions, insulin pumps, and those without teleretinal imaging within the postintervention period or who died during the study period were excluded.

Patient baseline characteristics collected included demographic data, CV comorbidities, antihyperglycemic medications, and changes in insulin doses. Parameters analyzed at baseline and 3 to 12 months postconversion included body weight, HbA_1c, and blood glucose levels.

Outcomes

The primary objectives of this QI project were to assess glycemic control (via changes in HbA_1c levels) and cost savings following patient conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. A second objective was to educate clinicians for referral of T2DM patients without teleretinal imaging in the past 2 years.

The purpose of the latter objective was to encourage conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide in the absence of DR. We predicted that 50% of patients with clinician education would be converted. Secondary objectives included assessing body weight differences, evaluating modifications in diabetes regimen, and documenting AEs. We predicted that glycemic control would either remain stable or improve with conversion to semaglutide.

Statistical Analysis

Patient demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Quantitative data (HbA_1c, blood glucose, and body weight differences as continuous variables) were analyzed using a paired Student t test, and categorical variables were analyzed using the χ² test.

During the study period, 692 patients were identified with active liraglutide prescriptions (Figure). Of these, 49 patients who were initially excluded due to outdated teleretinal imaging or negative findings met the criteria for clinician education, and 14 of those 49 patients (28.6%) were converted from liraglutide to semaglutide. Thirty-three patients (67.3%) did not schedule teleretinal imaging or did not convert to semaglutide following negative teleretinal findings. Two patients (4.1%) either scheduled or proceeded with teleretinal imaging, without any further action from the clinician.

Including the 14 patients converted posteducational intervention, 425 patients were converted to semaglutide. Excluded from analysis were 121 patients: 57 for incomplete HbA_1c data or no filled semaglutide prescription; 30 for HbA_1c and weight data outside of the study timeframe; 25 died of causes unrelated to the project; 8 had insulin pumps; and 1 was diagnosed with late-onset type 1 DM. The final sample was 304 patients who underwent analysis.

Two hundred seventy-three patients (89.8%) were male, and 180 (59.2%) were White (Table 1). The mean (SD) age of patients was 65.9 (9.6) years, and 236 (77.6%) were established on insulin therapy (either basal, bolus, or a combination). The 3 most common antihyperglycemic agents (other than insulin) that patients used included 185 metformin (60.9%), 104 empagliflozin (34.2%), and 50 glipizide (16.4%) prescriptions.

Most patients had CV disease. Three hundred patients (98.7%) had comorbid hypertension, 298 (98.0%) had hyperlipidemia, and 114 (37.5%) had coronary artery disease (Table 2). Other diseases that patients were concomitantly diagnosed with included peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, and history of myocardial infarction.

Documented AEs included 83 patients (27.3%) with hypoglycemia at any point within 3 to 12 months of conversion and 25 patients (8.2%) with mainly GI-related events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, decreased appetite, and abdominal pain. Six patients (2.0%) had a new diagnosis of DR 3 to 12 months postconversion.

Glycemic Control and Weight Changes

At baseline, mean (SD) HbA_1c was 8.1% (1.5), blood glucose was 187.4 (44.2) mg/dL, and body weight was 112.9 (23.0) kg (Table 3). In the timeframe evaluated (3 to 12 months postconversion), patients’ mean (SD) HbA_1c was found to have significantly decreased to 7.6% (1.4) (P < .001; 95% CI, -0.7 to -0.3), blood glucose decreased to 172.6 (39.0) mg/dL (P < .001; 95% CI, -19.3 to -10.2), and body weight decreased to 105.2 (32.3) kg (P < .001; 95% CI, -10.6 to -4.8). All parameters evaluated were deemed statistically significant.

Further analyses evaluating specific changes in HbA_1c observed postconversion are as follows: 199 patients (65.5%) experienced a decrease, 92 (30.3%) experienced an increase, and 13 (4.3%) experienced no change in their HbA_1c.

As the timeframe was fairly broad to assess HbA_1c changes, a prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to determine specific changes in HbA_1c within 3 to 6, 6 to 9, and 9 to 12 months postconversion (Table 4). At 3 to 6 months postconversion, patient mean (SD) HbA_1c levels significantly decreased from 8.2% (1.5) at baseline to 7.6% (1.3) postconversion (P = .002; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2). At 6 to 9 months postconversion, the mean (SD) HbA_1c significantly decreased from 8.1% (1.5) at baseline to 7.6% (1.4) postconversion (P = .002; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.2).

Glucose-Lowering Agent Adjustments

One hundred thirteen patients (37.2%) required no changes to their antihyperglycemic regimen with the conversion, 85 (28.0%) required increased insulin doses, and 77 (25.3%) required decreased insulin doses (Table 5). Forty-five (14.8%) patients underwent discontinuation of either insulin or other antihyperglycemic agents; 44 (14.5%) had other antihyperglycemic agents dose increased, 39 (12.8%) required adding other glucose-lowering agents, 28 (9.2%) discontinued semaglutide, and 10 (3.3%) had other glucose-lowering medication doses decreased.

Cost Savings

Cost savings were evaluated using the MEDVAMC outpatient pharmacy procurement service. The total cost savings per patient per month was $82.49. For the 411 preclinician education patients converted to semaglutide, this resulted in a prospective annual cost savings of $406,840.68. An additional $13,858.32 was saved due to the intervention/clinician education for 14 patients converted to semaglutide. The total annual cost savings was $420,699.00.

Discussion

Overall, glycemic control significantly improved with veterans’ conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. Not only were significant changes noted with HbA_1c levels and weight, but consistencies were noted with mean HbA_1c decrease and weight loss expected of GLP-1 RAs noted in clinical trials. The typical range for HbA_1c changes expected is -1% to -2% and weight loss of 1 to 6 kg.^4,7 Data from the LEAD-5 and SUSTAIN-4 trials, evaluating glycemic control in liraglutide and semaglutide, respectively, have noted comparable yet slightly more potent HbA_1c decreases (-1.33% for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily vs -1.2% and -1.6% for semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg weekly, respectively).^8,9 However, more robust weight loss has been noted with semaglutide vs liraglutide (-4.62 kg for semaglutide 0.5 mg weekly and -6.33 kg for semaglutide 1 mg weekly vs -3.43 kg for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily).^8,9 Results from the SUSTAIN-10 trial also noted mean changes in HbA_1c of -1.7% for semaglutide 1 mg weekly vs -1.0% for liraglutide 1.2 mg daily; mean body weight differences were -5.8 kg for semaglutide and -1.9 kg for liraglutide at their respective doses.⁵ The mean weight loss noted with this QI project is consistent with prior trials of semaglutide.

Of note, 44 patients (14.5%) required the dosage increase of either one or multiple additional glucose-lowering agents at any time point within the 3- to 12-month period. Of those patients, 38 (86.4%) underwent further semaglutide dose titration to 1 mg weekly. Common reasons for a further dose increase to 1 mg weekly were an indication for more robust HbA_1c lowering, a desire to decrease patients’ either basal or bolus insulin requirements, or a treatment goal of completely titrating patients off insulin.

It is uncertain why 30.3% of patients experienced an increase in HbA_1c and 4.3% experienced no change. However, possibilities for the divergence in HbA_1c outcomes in these subsets of patients may include suboptimal adherence to semaglutide or other antihyperglycemic agents as indicated by clinicians or nonadherence to dietary and lifestyle modifications.

Most patients (65.5%) experienced a decrease in HbA_1c because of conversion to semaglutide, and AEs appeared as follows: 27.3% experienced hypoglycemia, and 8.2% experienced GI intolerance. The semaglutide discontinuation rate neared 10%, a majority due to intolerable AEs as previously described. Overall, patients seemed to tolerate the medication well as their glycemic control and weight loss improved. Adherence was not objectively assessed for this QI project but could be an area of improvement for future studies.

At the MEDVAMC, liraglutide is a nonformulary agent and semaglutide is now the formulary-preferred option. For patients with uncontrolled T2DM, if a GLP-1 RA is desired for therapy, clinicians are to place a prior authorization drug request (PADR) consultation for semaglutide for further evaluation and review of VA Criteria for Use (CFU) by clinical pharmacist practitioners. Liraglutide is the alternative option if patients do not meet the CFU for semaglutide (ie, have a diagnosis of DR among other exclusions). However, the semaglutide CFU was updated in April 2022 to exclude those specifically diagnosed with PDR, severe NPDR, and macular edema unless an ophthalmologist deems semaglutide acceptable. This indicates that patients with mild-to-moderate NPDR (who were originally excluded from this QI project) are now eligible to receive semaglutide. The incidence of new DR diagnoses (2%) observed in this study could indicate an unclear relationship between semaglutide and increased rates of DR; however, no definitive correlation can be established due to the retrospective nature of this project. The implications of the results of this QI project in relation to the updated CFU remain undetermined.

Due to the comparable improvements in HbA_1c and more robust weight loss noted with semaglutide vs liraglutide, we deem it appropriate to select semaglutide as the more cost-efficient GLP-1 RA and formulary preferred option. The data of this QI project supports the overall safety and treatment utility of this option. Although significant cost savings were achieved (> $400,000), the long-term benefit of the liraglutide to semaglutide conversion remains unknown.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of this project include the large sample size, its setting in a large VA medical center, and the evaluation of multiple outcomes beyond HbA_1c for assessment of glycemic control (ie, mean blood glucose, insulin titration, and dose adjustment of other glucose-lowering agents).

Limitations of this study include the retrospective chart review used for data collection, limited accuracy of objective data due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and inconsistencies with documentation in patients’ electronic health records. As a protective measure in the height of the pandemic between March 2021 and November 2021, the VA promoted using telephone and virtual-visit clinics to minimize exposure for patients with nonurgent follow-up needs. Patient hesitance to present to the clinic in person due to COVID-19 was also a significant factor in obtaining objective follow-up data. As a result, less accurate and timely baseline and postconversion weight and HbA_1c data resulted, leading to our decision to extend the timeframe evaluated postconversion to 3 to 12 months. We also noted inconsistencies with documentation in CPRS. Unless veterans were closely followed by clinical pharmacist practitioners or endocrine consultation service clinicians, it was more difficult to follow and document trends of insulin titration to assess the impact of semaglutide conversion. The number of AEs, including hypoglycemia and GI intolerance, were also not consistently documented within the CPRS, and the frequency of AEs may be underestimated.

Another possible limitation regarding the interpretation of the results includes the portion of patients titrated up to semaglutide 1 mg weekly. As the focal point of this project was to review changes in glycemic control in the conversion to semaglutide 0.5 mg, this population of patients converted to 1 mg could potentially overestimate the HbA_1c and weight changes described, as it is consistent with the SUSTAIN trials that show more robust decreases in those parameters described earlier.

Conclusions

A subset of patients with T2DM converted from liraglutide to semaglutide experienced significant changes in glycemic control and body weight. Significant differences were noted for a decreased HbA_1c, decreased mean blood glucose, and weight loss. A fair portion of patients’ antihyperglycemic regimens required no changes on conversion to semaglutide. Although the semaglutide discontinuation rate neared 10%, AEs that may have contributed to this discontinuation rate included hypoglycemia and GI intolerance. Clinician education resulted in a substantial number of patients undergoing teleretinal imaging and further conversion to semaglutide; however, due to the low conversion response rate, a more effective method of educating clinicians is warranted. Although the semaglutide cost savings initiative at MEDVAMC resulted in significant savings, a full cost-effective analysis is needed to assess more comprehensive institution savings.

Semaglutide and liraglutide are glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as subcutaneous injections for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Both are recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) as first-line options for patients with concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease and exert therapeutic effect via incretin-like mechanisms.¹ These agents lower blood glucose levels by stimulating insulin release, increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin, and inhibiting inappropriate glucagon secretion.^2,3 They also slow gastric emptying, resulting in decreased appetite and potential weight loss.⁴

The SUSTAIN (1-7) trials concluded that semaglutide presented an equivalent safety profile and greater efficacy compared with other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide.² The SUSTAIN-10 open-label, head-to-head trial evaluating 1 mg semaglutide once weekly vs 1.2 mg liraglutide daily concluded that semaglutide was superior in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and body weight reduction compared with liraglutide, with slightly increased gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs).⁵ Similar to the LEADER trial assessing liraglutide, SUSTAIN-6 evaluated semaglutide in patients at increased CV risk and found that compared with placebo, semaglutide decreased rates of serious CV events, such as CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and were similar to the CV outcomes in the LEADER trial.^2,6 Although initial results of the SUSTAIN-6 trial were thought to be nearly equivalent to the LEADER trial, analyses later published comparing both trials noted that semaglutide had more potent HbA_1c lowering and weight loss benefit when compared with liraglutide.^2,6 The cardioprotective outcomes of SUSTAIN-6 qualified semaglutide for inclusion in the current ADA Standards of Medical Care recommendations for CV risk reduction.^6,7 However, despite the CV safety profile and efficacy associated with semaglutide, the SUSTAIN-6 trial noted an increased risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) complications in 50 of 1648 patients (3%) treated with semaglutide compared with 29 of 1649 (1.8%) who received placebo (P = .02; hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.78).⁶ Of the 79 total patients who experienced retinopathy complications, 66 had retinopathy at baseline (42 of 50 [84%]) in the semaglutide group; 24 of 29 [83%] in the placebo group).⁶ Worsening of DR became one of the most notable AEs of semaglutide evaluated in clinical trials. This further deemed the effect as a warning in the semaglutide package insert to assist clinicians with treatment decisions.

As part of a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Lost Opportunity Cost Savings Initiative, which encompasses administrative efforts to promote more cost-effective yet safe and efficacious therapy options for veterans, the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, converted a portion of patients with T2DM established on liraglutide to semaglutide. The 30-day supply cost of the 2-pack liraglutide 6 mg/mL (3 mL) injection pens for the MEDVAMC was $197.64. The 30-day supply cost for the singular multidose semaglutide 0.5 mg/0.375 mL (1.5 mL) injection pen was $115.15. Cost savings for the MEDVAMC facility were initially estimated to reach $642,522.

The subset of patients converted had to have undergone teleretinal imaging and not have a diagnosis of nonproliferative DR (NPDR), proliferative DR (PDR), or PDR with or without diabetic macular edema. These recommendations excluding various forms of retinopathy were implemented per local institution guidance supporting clinical data from the SUSTAIN trials. Patients diagnosed with these conditions were continued on liraglutide due to an increased risk of DR complications associated with semaglutide.

In the fall of 2021, there was also a standing list of patients on liraglutide who were not converted due to a lack of teleretinal imaging. As a result, there was potential for a quality improvement (QI) intervention to target this patient population, which could result in further cost savings for MEDVAMC and improved glycemic control because of increased conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. The purpose of this project was to perform a QI assessment on this subset of patients both initially converted from liraglutide to semaglutide, and those who were yet to be converted due to a lack of teleretinal imaging to determine the impact on glycemic control and cost savings.

Methods

This QI project was a single-center, prospective cohort study with a retrospective chart review of veterans with T2DM converted from liraglutide to semaglutide at the MEDVAMC. Patient data were collected from the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) between March 1, 2021, and November 30, 2021. An initial subset of patients was converted to semaglutide in March and April 2021. Patients initially excluded underwent a second chart review to determine whether they truly met exclusion criteria. Patients who did not have a definitive diagnosis of NPDR or PDR, those due for updated teleretinal imaging, as well as those with updated teleretinal imaging that excluded NPDR or PDR were targeted for clinician education interventions.

Following this intervention, a subset of patients with negative DR findings were converted from liraglutide to semaglutide. Primary care and endocrinology clinicians were notified that patients who met the criteria should be referred for teleretinal imaging if no updated results were present or that patients were eligible for semaglutide conversion based on negative findings. Both patients who were initially converted as well as those converted following education were included for data collection/analysis of glycemic control via HbA_1c and blood glucose levels.

Cost savings were evaluated using outpatient pharmacy procurement pricing data. This project was approved by the MEDVAMC Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs Office.

Participants

Patients included in the study were adults aged ≥ 18 years with T2DM, converted from liraglutide 0.6 and 1.2 mg daily to semaglutide 0.25 mg weekly (titrated to 0.5 mg weekly after 4 weeks), and had an active prescription for semaglutide, with or without insulin or other oral antihyperglycemics. Patients with NPDR or PDR, type 1 DM, no HbA_1c data, no filled semaglutide prescriptions, insulin pumps, and those without teleretinal imaging within the postintervention period or who died during the study period were excluded.

Patient baseline characteristics collected included demographic data, CV comorbidities, antihyperglycemic medications, and changes in insulin doses. Parameters analyzed at baseline and 3 to 12 months postconversion included body weight, HbA_1c, and blood glucose levels.

Outcomes

The primary objectives of this QI project were to assess glycemic control (via changes in HbA_1c levels) and cost savings following patient conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. A second objective was to educate clinicians for referral of T2DM patients without teleretinal imaging in the past 2 years.

The purpose of the latter objective was to encourage conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide in the absence of DR. We predicted that 50% of patients with clinician education would be converted. Secondary objectives included assessing body weight differences, evaluating modifications in diabetes regimen, and documenting AEs. We predicted that glycemic control would either remain stable or improve with conversion to semaglutide.

Statistical Analysis

Patient demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Quantitative data (HbA_1c, blood glucose, and body weight differences as continuous variables) were analyzed using a paired Student t test, and categorical variables were analyzed using the χ² test.

During the study period, 692 patients were identified with active liraglutide prescriptions (Figure). Of these, 49 patients who were initially excluded due to outdated teleretinal imaging or negative findings met the criteria for clinician education, and 14 of those 49 patients (28.6%) were converted from liraglutide to semaglutide. Thirty-three patients (67.3%) did not schedule teleretinal imaging or did not convert to semaglutide following negative teleretinal findings. Two patients (4.1%) either scheduled or proceeded with teleretinal imaging, without any further action from the clinician.

Including the 14 patients converted posteducational intervention, 425 patients were converted to semaglutide. Excluded from analysis were 121 patients: 57 for incomplete HbA_1c data or no filled semaglutide prescription; 30 for HbA_1c and weight data outside of the study timeframe; 25 died of causes unrelated to the project; 8 had insulin pumps; and 1 was diagnosed with late-onset type 1 DM. The final sample was 304 patients who underwent analysis.

Two hundred seventy-three patients (89.8%) were male, and 180 (59.2%) were White (Table 1). The mean (SD) age of patients was 65.9 (9.6) years, and 236 (77.6%) were established on insulin therapy (either basal, bolus, or a combination). The 3 most common antihyperglycemic agents (other than insulin) that patients used included 185 metformin (60.9%), 104 empagliflozin (34.2%), and 50 glipizide (16.4%) prescriptions.

Most patients had CV disease. Three hundred patients (98.7%) had comorbid hypertension, 298 (98.0%) had hyperlipidemia, and 114 (37.5%) had coronary artery disease (Table 2). Other diseases that patients were concomitantly diagnosed with included peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, and history of myocardial infarction.

Documented AEs included 83 patients (27.3%) with hypoglycemia at any point within 3 to 12 months of conversion and 25 patients (8.2%) with mainly GI-related events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, decreased appetite, and abdominal pain. Six patients (2.0%) had a new diagnosis of DR 3 to 12 months postconversion.

Glycemic Control and Weight Changes

At baseline, mean (SD) HbA_1c was 8.1% (1.5), blood glucose was 187.4 (44.2) mg/dL, and body weight was 112.9 (23.0) kg (Table 3). In the timeframe evaluated (3 to 12 months postconversion), patients’ mean (SD) HbA_1c was found to have significantly decreased to 7.6% (1.4) (P < .001; 95% CI, -0.7 to -0.3), blood glucose decreased to 172.6 (39.0) mg/dL (P < .001; 95% CI, -19.3 to -10.2), and body weight decreased to 105.2 (32.3) kg (P < .001; 95% CI, -10.6 to -4.8). All parameters evaluated were deemed statistically significant.

Further analyses evaluating specific changes in HbA_1c observed postconversion are as follows: 199 patients (65.5%) experienced a decrease, 92 (30.3%) experienced an increase, and 13 (4.3%) experienced no change in their HbA_1c.

As the timeframe was fairly broad to assess HbA_1c changes, a prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to determine specific changes in HbA_1c within 3 to 6, 6 to 9, and 9 to 12 months postconversion (Table 4). At 3 to 6 months postconversion, patient mean (SD) HbA_1c levels significantly decreased from 8.2% (1.5) at baseline to 7.6% (1.3) postconversion (P = .002; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2). At 6 to 9 months postconversion, the mean (SD) HbA_1c significantly decreased from 8.1% (1.5) at baseline to 7.6% (1.4) postconversion (P = .002; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.2).

Glucose-Lowering Agent Adjustments

One hundred thirteen patients (37.2%) required no changes to their antihyperglycemic regimen with the conversion, 85 (28.0%) required increased insulin doses, and 77 (25.3%) required decreased insulin doses (Table 5). Forty-five (14.8%) patients underwent discontinuation of either insulin or other antihyperglycemic agents; 44 (14.5%) had other antihyperglycemic agents dose increased, 39 (12.8%) required adding other glucose-lowering agents, 28 (9.2%) discontinued semaglutide, and 10 (3.3%) had other glucose-lowering medication doses decreased.

Cost Savings

Cost savings were evaluated using the MEDVAMC outpatient pharmacy procurement service. The total cost savings per patient per month was $82.49. For the 411 preclinician education patients converted to semaglutide, this resulted in a prospective annual cost savings of $406,840.68. An additional $13,858.32 was saved due to the intervention/clinician education for 14 patients converted to semaglutide. The total annual cost savings was $420,699.00.

Discussion

Overall, glycemic control significantly improved with veterans’ conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. Not only were significant changes noted with HbA_1c levels and weight, but consistencies were noted with mean HbA_1c decrease and weight loss expected of GLP-1 RAs noted in clinical trials. The typical range for HbA_1c changes expected is -1% to -2% and weight loss of 1 to 6 kg.^4,7 Data from the LEAD-5 and SUSTAIN-4 trials, evaluating glycemic control in liraglutide and semaglutide, respectively, have noted comparable yet slightly more potent HbA_1c decreases (-1.33% for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily vs -1.2% and -1.6% for semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg weekly, respectively).^8,9 However, more robust weight loss has been noted with semaglutide vs liraglutide (-4.62 kg for semaglutide 0.5 mg weekly and -6.33 kg for semaglutide 1 mg weekly vs -3.43 kg for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily).^8,9 Results from the SUSTAIN-10 trial also noted mean changes in HbA_1c of -1.7% for semaglutide 1 mg weekly vs -1.0% for liraglutide 1.2 mg daily; mean body weight differences were -5.8 kg for semaglutide and -1.9 kg for liraglutide at their respective doses.⁵ The mean weight loss noted with this QI project is consistent with prior trials of semaglutide.

Of note, 44 patients (14.5%) required the dosage increase of either one or multiple additional glucose-lowering agents at any time point within the 3- to 12-month period. Of those patients, 38 (86.4%) underwent further semaglutide dose titration to 1 mg weekly. Common reasons for a further dose increase to 1 mg weekly were an indication for more robust HbA_1c lowering, a desire to decrease patients’ either basal or bolus insulin requirements, or a treatment goal of completely titrating patients off insulin.

It is uncertain why 30.3% of patients experienced an increase in HbA_1c and 4.3% experienced no change. However, possibilities for the divergence in HbA_1c outcomes in these subsets of patients may include suboptimal adherence to semaglutide or other antihyperglycemic agents as indicated by clinicians or nonadherence to dietary and lifestyle modifications.

Most patients (65.5%) experienced a decrease in HbA_1c because of conversion to semaglutide, and AEs appeared as follows: 27.3% experienced hypoglycemia, and 8.2% experienced GI intolerance. The semaglutide discontinuation rate neared 10%, a majority due to intolerable AEs as previously described. Overall, patients seemed to tolerate the medication well as their glycemic control and weight loss improved. Adherence was not objectively assessed for this QI project but could be an area of improvement for future studies.

At the MEDVAMC, liraglutide is a nonformulary agent and semaglutide is now the formulary-preferred option. For patients with uncontrolled T2DM, if a GLP-1 RA is desired for therapy, clinicians are to place a prior authorization drug request (PADR) consultation for semaglutide for further evaluation and review of VA Criteria for Use (CFU) by clinical pharmacist practitioners. Liraglutide is the alternative option if patients do not meet the CFU for semaglutide (ie, have a diagnosis of DR among other exclusions). However, the semaglutide CFU was updated in April 2022 to exclude those specifically diagnosed with PDR, severe NPDR, and macular edema unless an ophthalmologist deems semaglutide acceptable. This indicates that patients with mild-to-moderate NPDR (who were originally excluded from this QI project) are now eligible to receive semaglutide. The incidence of new DR diagnoses (2%) observed in this study could indicate an unclear relationship between semaglutide and increased rates of DR; however, no definitive correlation can be established due to the retrospective nature of this project. The implications of the results of this QI project in relation to the updated CFU remain undetermined.

Due to the comparable improvements in HbA_1c and more robust weight loss noted with semaglutide vs liraglutide, we deem it appropriate to select semaglutide as the more cost-efficient GLP-1 RA and formulary preferred option. The data of this QI project supports the overall safety and treatment utility of this option. Although significant cost savings were achieved (> $400,000), the long-term benefit of the liraglutide to semaglutide conversion remains unknown.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of this project include the large sample size, its setting in a large VA medical center, and the evaluation of multiple outcomes beyond HbA_1c for assessment of glycemic control (ie, mean blood glucose, insulin titration, and dose adjustment of other glucose-lowering agents).

Limitations of this study include the retrospective chart review used for data collection, limited accuracy of objective data due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and inconsistencies with documentation in patients’ electronic health records. As a protective measure in the height of the pandemic between March 2021 and November 2021, the VA promoted using telephone and virtual-visit clinics to minimize exposure for patients with nonurgent follow-up needs. Patient hesitance to present to the clinic in person due to COVID-19 was also a significant factor in obtaining objective follow-up data. As a result, less accurate and timely baseline and postconversion weight and HbA_1c data resulted, leading to our decision to extend the timeframe evaluated postconversion to 3 to 12 months. We also noted inconsistencies with documentation in CPRS. Unless veterans were closely followed by clinical pharmacist practitioners or endocrine consultation service clinicians, it was more difficult to follow and document trends of insulin titration to assess the impact of semaglutide conversion. The number of AEs, including hypoglycemia and GI intolerance, were also not consistently documented within the CPRS, and the frequency of AEs may be underestimated.

Another possible limitation regarding the interpretation of the results includes the portion of patients titrated up to semaglutide 1 mg weekly. As the focal point of this project was to review changes in glycemic control in the conversion to semaglutide 0.5 mg, this population of patients converted to 1 mg could potentially overestimate the HbA_1c and weight changes described, as it is consistent with the SUSTAIN trials that show more robust decreases in those parameters described earlier.

Conclusions

A subset of patients with T2DM converted from liraglutide to semaglutide experienced significant changes in glycemic control and body weight. Significant differences were noted for a decreased HbA_1c, decreased mean blood glucose, and weight loss. A fair portion of patients’ antihyperglycemic regimens required no changes on conversion to semaglutide. Although the semaglutide discontinuation rate neared 10%, AEs that may have contributed to this discontinuation rate included hypoglycemia and GI intolerance. Clinician education resulted in a substantial number of patients undergoing teleretinal imaging and further conversion to semaglutide; however, due to the low conversion response rate, a more effective method of educating clinicians is warranted. Although the semaglutide cost savings initiative at MEDVAMC resulted in significant savings, a full cost-effective analysis is needed to assess more comprehensive institution savings.

Semaglutide and liraglutide are glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as subcutaneous injections for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Both are recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) as first-line options for patients with concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease and exert therapeutic effect via incretin-like mechanisms.¹ These agents lower blood glucose levels by stimulating insulin release, increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin, and inhibiting inappropriate glucagon secretion.^2,3 They also slow gastric emptying, resulting in decreased appetite and potential weight loss.⁴

The SUSTAIN (1-7) trials concluded that semaglutide presented an equivalent safety profile and greater efficacy compared with other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide.² The SUSTAIN-10 open-label, head-to-head trial evaluating 1 mg semaglutide once weekly vs 1.2 mg liraglutide daily concluded that semaglutide was superior in hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) and body weight reduction compared with liraglutide, with slightly increased gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs).⁵ Similar to the LEADER trial assessing liraglutide, SUSTAIN-6 evaluated semaglutide in patients at increased CV risk and found that compared with placebo, semaglutide decreased rates of serious CV events, such as CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and were similar to the CV outcomes in the LEADER trial.^2,6 Although initial results of the SUSTAIN-6 trial were thought to be nearly equivalent to the LEADER trial, analyses later published comparing both trials noted that semaglutide had more potent HbA_1c lowering and weight loss benefit when compared with liraglutide.^2,6 The cardioprotective outcomes of SUSTAIN-6 qualified semaglutide for inclusion in the current ADA Standards of Medical Care recommendations for CV risk reduction.^6,7 However, despite the CV safety profile and efficacy associated with semaglutide, the SUSTAIN-6 trial noted an increased risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) complications in 50 of 1648 patients (3%) treated with semaglutide compared with 29 of 1649 (1.8%) who received placebo (P = .02; hazard ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.78).⁶ Of the 79 total patients who experienced retinopathy complications, 66 had retinopathy at baseline (42 of 50 [84%]) in the semaglutide group; 24 of 29 [83%] in the placebo group).⁶ Worsening of DR became one of the most notable AEs of semaglutide evaluated in clinical trials. This further deemed the effect as a warning in the semaglutide package insert to assist clinicians with treatment decisions.

As part of a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Lost Opportunity Cost Savings Initiative, which encompasses administrative efforts to promote more cost-effective yet safe and efficacious therapy options for veterans, the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, converted a portion of patients with T2DM established on liraglutide to semaglutide. The 30-day supply cost of the 2-pack liraglutide 6 mg/mL (3 mL) injection pens for the MEDVAMC was $197.64. The 30-day supply cost for the singular multidose semaglutide 0.5 mg/0.375 mL (1.5 mL) injection pen was $115.15. Cost savings for the MEDVAMC facility were initially estimated to reach $642,522.

The subset of patients converted had to have undergone teleretinal imaging and not have a diagnosis of nonproliferative DR (NPDR), proliferative DR (PDR), or PDR with or without diabetic macular edema. These recommendations excluding various forms of retinopathy were implemented per local institution guidance supporting clinical data from the SUSTAIN trials. Patients diagnosed with these conditions were continued on liraglutide due to an increased risk of DR complications associated with semaglutide.

In the fall of 2021, there was also a standing list of patients on liraglutide who were not converted due to a lack of teleretinal imaging. As a result, there was potential for a quality improvement (QI) intervention to target this patient population, which could result in further cost savings for MEDVAMC and improved glycemic control because of increased conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. The purpose of this project was to perform a QI assessment on this subset of patients both initially converted from liraglutide to semaglutide, and those who were yet to be converted due to a lack of teleretinal imaging to determine the impact on glycemic control and cost savings.

Methods

This QI project was a single-center, prospective cohort study with a retrospective chart review of veterans with T2DM converted from liraglutide to semaglutide at the MEDVAMC. Patient data were collected from the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) between March 1, 2021, and November 30, 2021. An initial subset of patients was converted to semaglutide in March and April 2021. Patients initially excluded underwent a second chart review to determine whether they truly met exclusion criteria. Patients who did not have a definitive diagnosis of NPDR or PDR, those due for updated teleretinal imaging, as well as those with updated teleretinal imaging that excluded NPDR or PDR were targeted for clinician education interventions.

Following this intervention, a subset of patients with negative DR findings were converted from liraglutide to semaglutide. Primary care and endocrinology clinicians were notified that patients who met the criteria should be referred for teleretinal imaging if no updated results were present or that patients were eligible for semaglutide conversion based on negative findings. Both patients who were initially converted as well as those converted following education were included for data collection/analysis of glycemic control via HbA_1c and blood glucose levels.

Cost savings were evaluated using outpatient pharmacy procurement pricing data. This project was approved by the MEDVAMC Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs Office.

Participants

Patients included in the study were adults aged ≥ 18 years with T2DM, converted from liraglutide 0.6 and 1.2 mg daily to semaglutide 0.25 mg weekly (titrated to 0.5 mg weekly after 4 weeks), and had an active prescription for semaglutide, with or without insulin or other oral antihyperglycemics. Patients with NPDR or PDR, type 1 DM, no HbA_1c data, no filled semaglutide prescriptions, insulin pumps, and those without teleretinal imaging within the postintervention period or who died during the study period were excluded.

Patient baseline characteristics collected included demographic data, CV comorbidities, antihyperglycemic medications, and changes in insulin doses. Parameters analyzed at baseline and 3 to 12 months postconversion included body weight, HbA_1c, and blood glucose levels.

Outcomes

The primary objectives of this QI project were to assess glycemic control (via changes in HbA_1c levels) and cost savings following patient conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. A second objective was to educate clinicians for referral of T2DM patients without teleretinal imaging in the past 2 years.

The purpose of the latter objective was to encourage conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide in the absence of DR. We predicted that 50% of patients with clinician education would be converted. Secondary objectives included assessing body weight differences, evaluating modifications in diabetes regimen, and documenting AEs. We predicted that glycemic control would either remain stable or improve with conversion to semaglutide.

Statistical Analysis

Patient demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Quantitative data (HbA_1c, blood glucose, and body weight differences as continuous variables) were analyzed using a paired Student t test, and categorical variables were analyzed using the χ² test.

During the study period, 692 patients were identified with active liraglutide prescriptions (Figure). Of these, 49 patients who were initially excluded due to outdated teleretinal imaging or negative findings met the criteria for clinician education, and 14 of those 49 patients (28.6%) were converted from liraglutide to semaglutide. Thirty-three patients (67.3%) did not schedule teleretinal imaging or did not convert to semaglutide following negative teleretinal findings. Two patients (4.1%) either scheduled or proceeded with teleretinal imaging, without any further action from the clinician.

Including the 14 patients converted posteducational intervention, 425 patients were converted to semaglutide. Excluded from analysis were 121 patients: 57 for incomplete HbA_1c data or no filled semaglutide prescription; 30 for HbA_1c and weight data outside of the study timeframe; 25 died of causes unrelated to the project; 8 had insulin pumps; and 1 was diagnosed with late-onset type 1 DM. The final sample was 304 patients who underwent analysis.

Two hundred seventy-three patients (89.8%) were male, and 180 (59.2%) were White (Table 1). The mean (SD) age of patients was 65.9 (9.6) years, and 236 (77.6%) were established on insulin therapy (either basal, bolus, or a combination). The 3 most common antihyperglycemic agents (other than insulin) that patients used included 185 metformin (60.9%), 104 empagliflozin (34.2%), and 50 glipizide (16.4%) prescriptions.

Most patients had CV disease. Three hundred patients (98.7%) had comorbid hypertension, 298 (98.0%) had hyperlipidemia, and 114 (37.5%) had coronary artery disease (Table 2). Other diseases that patients were concomitantly diagnosed with included peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, and history of myocardial infarction.

Documented AEs included 83 patients (27.3%) with hypoglycemia at any point within 3 to 12 months of conversion and 25 patients (8.2%) with mainly GI-related events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, decreased appetite, and abdominal pain. Six patients (2.0%) had a new diagnosis of DR 3 to 12 months postconversion.

Glycemic Control and Weight Changes

At baseline, mean (SD) HbA_1c was 8.1% (1.5), blood glucose was 187.4 (44.2) mg/dL, and body weight was 112.9 (23.0) kg (Table 3). In the timeframe evaluated (3 to 12 months postconversion), patients’ mean (SD) HbA_1c was found to have significantly decreased to 7.6% (1.4) (P < .001; 95% CI, -0.7 to -0.3), blood glucose decreased to 172.6 (39.0) mg/dL (P < .001; 95% CI, -19.3 to -10.2), and body weight decreased to 105.2 (32.3) kg (P < .001; 95% CI, -10.6 to -4.8). All parameters evaluated were deemed statistically significant.

Further analyses evaluating specific changes in HbA_1c observed postconversion are as follows: 199 patients (65.5%) experienced a decrease, 92 (30.3%) experienced an increase, and 13 (4.3%) experienced no change in their HbA_1c.

As the timeframe was fairly broad to assess HbA_1c changes, a prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted to determine specific changes in HbA_1c within 3 to 6, 6 to 9, and 9 to 12 months postconversion (Table 4). At 3 to 6 months postconversion, patient mean (SD) HbA_1c levels significantly decreased from 8.2% (1.5) at baseline to 7.6% (1.3) postconversion (P = .002; 95% CI, -1.0 to -0.2). At 6 to 9 months postconversion, the mean (SD) HbA_1c significantly decreased from 8.1% (1.5) at baseline to 7.6% (1.4) postconversion (P = .002; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.2).

Glucose-Lowering Agent Adjustments

One hundred thirteen patients (37.2%) required no changes to their antihyperglycemic regimen with the conversion, 85 (28.0%) required increased insulin doses, and 77 (25.3%) required decreased insulin doses (Table 5). Forty-five (14.8%) patients underwent discontinuation of either insulin or other antihyperglycemic agents; 44 (14.5%) had other antihyperglycemic agents dose increased, 39 (12.8%) required adding other glucose-lowering agents, 28 (9.2%) discontinued semaglutide, and 10 (3.3%) had other glucose-lowering medication doses decreased.

Cost Savings

Cost savings were evaluated using the MEDVAMC outpatient pharmacy procurement service. The total cost savings per patient per month was $82.49. For the 411 preclinician education patients converted to semaglutide, this resulted in a prospective annual cost savings of $406,840.68. An additional $13,858.32 was saved due to the intervention/clinician education for 14 patients converted to semaglutide. The total annual cost savings was $420,699.00.

Discussion

Overall, glycemic control significantly improved with veterans’ conversion from liraglutide to semaglutide. Not only were significant changes noted with HbA_1c levels and weight, but consistencies were noted with mean HbA_1c decrease and weight loss expected of GLP-1 RAs noted in clinical trials. The typical range for HbA_1c changes expected is -1% to -2% and weight loss of 1 to 6 kg.^4,7 Data from the LEAD-5 and SUSTAIN-4 trials, evaluating glycemic control in liraglutide and semaglutide, respectively, have noted comparable yet slightly more potent HbA_1c decreases (-1.33% for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily vs -1.2% and -1.6% for semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg weekly, respectively).^8,9 However, more robust weight loss has been noted with semaglutide vs liraglutide (-4.62 kg for semaglutide 0.5 mg weekly and -6.33 kg for semaglutide 1 mg weekly vs -3.43 kg for liraglutide 1.8 mg daily).^8,9 Results from the SUSTAIN-10 trial also noted mean changes in HbA_1c of -1.7% for semaglutide 1 mg weekly vs -1.0% for liraglutide 1.2 mg daily; mean body weight differences were -5.8 kg for semaglutide and -1.9 kg for liraglutide at their respective doses.⁵ The mean weight loss noted with this QI project is consistent with prior trials of semaglutide.

Of note, 44 patients (14.5%) required the dosage increase of either one or multiple additional glucose-lowering agents at any time point within the 3- to 12-month period. Of those patients, 38 (86.4%) underwent further semaglutide dose titration to 1 mg weekly. Common reasons for a further dose increase to 1 mg weekly were an indication for more robust HbA_1c lowering, a desire to decrease patients’ either basal or bolus insulin requirements, or a treatment goal of completely titrating patients off insulin.

It is uncertain why 30.3% of patients experienced an increase in HbA_1c and 4.3% experienced no change. However, possibilities for the divergence in HbA_1c outcomes in these subsets of patients may include suboptimal adherence to semaglutide or other antihyperglycemic agents as indicated by clinicians or nonadherence to dietary and lifestyle modifications.

Most patients (65.5%) experienced a decrease in HbA_1c because of conversion to semaglutide, and AEs appeared as follows: 27.3% experienced hypoglycemia, and 8.2% experienced GI intolerance. The semaglutide discontinuation rate neared 10%, a majority due to intolerable AEs as previously described. Overall, patients seemed to tolerate the medication well as their glycemic control and weight loss improved. Adherence was not objectively assessed for this QI project but could be an area of improvement for future studies.

At the MEDVAMC, liraglutide is a nonformulary agent and semaglutide is now the formulary-preferred option. For patients with uncontrolled T2DM, if a GLP-1 RA is desired for therapy, clinicians are to place a prior authorization drug request (PADR) consultation for semaglutide for further evaluation and review of VA Criteria for Use (CFU) by clinical pharmacist practitioners. Liraglutide is the alternative option if patients do not meet the CFU for semaglutide (ie, have a diagnosis of DR among other exclusions). However, the semaglutide CFU was updated in April 2022 to exclude those specifically diagnosed with PDR, severe NPDR, and macular edema unless an ophthalmologist deems semaglutide acceptable. This indicates that patients with mild-to-moderate NPDR (who were originally excluded from this QI project) are now eligible to receive semaglutide. The incidence of new DR diagnoses (2%) observed in this study could indicate an unclear relationship between semaglutide and increased rates of DR; however, no definitive correlation can be established due to the retrospective nature of this project. The implications of the results of this QI project in relation to the updated CFU remain undetermined.

Due to the comparable improvements in HbA_1c and more robust weight loss noted with semaglutide vs liraglutide, we deem it appropriate to select semaglutide as the more cost-efficient GLP-1 RA and formulary preferred option. The data of this QI project supports the overall safety and treatment utility of this option. Although significant cost savings were achieved (> $400,000), the long-term benefit of the liraglutide to semaglutide conversion remains unknown.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths of this project include the large sample size, its setting in a large VA medical center, and the evaluation of multiple outcomes beyond HbA_1c for assessment of glycemic control (ie, mean blood glucose, insulin titration, and dose adjustment of other glucose-lowering agents).

Limitations of this study include the retrospective chart review used for data collection, limited accuracy of objective data due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and inconsistencies with documentation in patients’ electronic health records. As a protective measure in the height of the pandemic between March 2021 and November 2021, the VA promoted using telephone and virtual-visit clinics to minimize exposure for patients with nonurgent follow-up needs. Patient hesitance to present to the clinic in person due to COVID-19 was also a significant factor in obtaining objective follow-up data. As a result, less accurate and timely baseline and postconversion weight and HbA_1c data resulted, leading to our decision to extend the timeframe evaluated postconversion to 3 to 12 months. We also noted inconsistencies with documentation in CPRS. Unless veterans were closely followed by clinical pharmacist practitioners or endocrine consultation service clinicians, it was more difficult to follow and document trends of insulin titration to assess the impact of semaglutide conversion. The number of AEs, including hypoglycemia and GI intolerance, were also not consistently documented within the CPRS, and the frequency of AEs may be underestimated.

Another possible limitation regarding the interpretation of the results includes the portion of patients titrated up to semaglutide 1 mg weekly. As the focal point of this project was to review changes in glycemic control in the conversion to semaglutide 0.5 mg, this population of patients converted to 1 mg could potentially overestimate the HbA_1c and weight changes described, as it is consistent with the SUSTAIN trials that show more robust decreases in those parameters described earlier.

Conclusions

A subset of patients with T2DM converted from liraglutide to semaglutide experienced significant changes in glycemic control and body weight. Significant differences were noted for a decreased HbA_1c, decreased mean blood glucose, and weight loss. A fair portion of patients’ antihyperglycemic regimens required no changes on conversion to semaglutide. Although the semaglutide discontinuation rate neared 10%, AEs that may have contributed to this discontinuation rate included hypoglycemia and GI intolerance. Clinician education resulted in a substantial number of patients undergoing teleretinal imaging and further conversion to semaglutide; however, due to the low conversion response rate, a more effective method of educating clinicians is warranted. Although the semaglutide cost savings initiative at MEDVAMC resulted in significant savings, a full cost-effective analysis is needed to assess more comprehensive institution savings.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

A 36-year-old woman presents to your office for assistance with weight loss. She usually weighs around 150 lb, but she had two pregnancies in the past 4 years and has gained 70 lb. Her current weight is 220 lb with a body mass index (BMI) of 36.6 kg/m2, and she has been unable to lose any weight despite diet and exercise. She reports back pain and generalized fatigue but is primarily worried about developing type 2 diabetes, which runs in her family. Her insurance covers weight loss medications, but she is asking if she can take “Ozempic off-label” or “compounded semaglutide” instead because Wegovy isn’t available at her local pharmacy.

More and more people are turning to “medical weight management” to drop pounds and improve their health. This is a strategy that adds pharmacotherapy to lifestyle modifications to treat the chronic disease of obesity, and it is analogous to the treatment of high blood pressure or high cholesterol with medications.

This patient meets the criteria set forth by the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society for the management of obesity with antiobesity medications:

• BMI ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with weight-related comorbidities and
• Has been unable to achieve ≥ 5% weight loss with lifestyle changes alone.

Several U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved antiobesity medications have been proven to cause clinically significant weight loss:

• orlistat (Alli or Xenical).
• phentermine/topiramate (Qsymia).
• naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave).
• liraglutide 3.0 mg subcutaneously daily (Saxenda).
• semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously weekly (Wegovy).

When considering an antiobesity medication for a patient, it’s important to discuss efficacy, side-effect profile, contraindications, cost and coverage, and long-term use.

In this commentary, we’ll specifically focus on semaglutide (Wegovy) as it is currently the most effective FDA-approved medication for weight loss.
 

Efficacy

In a phase 3 clinical trial, patients on semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly lost an average of 15% of their body weight at 68 weeks, or approximately 33 lb. It is important to note that there is variability in treatment response to semaglutide 2.4 mg, just like with any other medication. About 1 in 3 individuals lost ≥ 20% of their weight, but about 1 in every 10 patients did not lose any weight.

In this patient, who has a family history of type 2 diabetes, weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg will probably reduce her risk of developing diabetes. With just 5%-10% weight loss, she will see improvements in her blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Even greater weight loss (≥ 10%) has been associated with resolution of fatty liver and sleep apnea.
 

Side effects

Before starting semaglutide, patients should be counseled about potential gastrointestinal side effects, including nausea, upset stomach, diarrhea, constipation, and reflux.

Side effects can be managed with dietary modifications, over-the-counter treatments, and slow dose escalation. Some common tips include:

• Eat slowly.
• Eat a bland diet.
• Avoid fatty or fried foods.
• Avoid lying down immediately after eating.
• Prioritize water and fiber intake to mitigate constipation.
• Use over-the-counter treatments as needed (for example, laxative for constipation).

Most of these side effects are present only during dose escalation and resolve once the patient is on a stable dose.

Patients should be counseled about the less than 1% risk for gallbladder issues or pancreatitis. They should be instructed to go to an urgent care or emergency room if they develop severe abdominal pain, recurrent vomiting, or the inability to eat or drink.
 

Contraindications

We don’t prescribe GLP-1 receptor agonists, including semaglutide 2.4 mg, in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer. GLP-1 agonists are contraindicated in patients with a history of pancreatitis or gastroparesis. All FDA-approved antiobesity medications are contraindicated in women who are breastfeeding or trying for pregnancy. If this patient would like to pursue pregnancy again, semaglutide 2.4 mg should be stopped 2 months prior to conception.

Access

In this case, the patient’s insurance covered semaglutide 2.4 mg with a copay of $25 per month. Without insurance, semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) costs about $1,400 per month, and semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic), the formulation approved for type 2 diabetes, costs up to $1,000 per month. These price ranges are often cost-prohibitive and unsustainable, especially because these medications are intended for long-term use.

Currently, Medicare does not cover antiobesity medications nor do most state Medicaid plans. Therefore, these medications are usually not considered by patients who have Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

Because insurance coverage varies and out-of-pocket costs can be prohibitive, many individuals seek other ways of acquiring semaglutide. The off-label use of semaglutide 2.0 mg (Ozempic) for obesity is scientifically supported and safe, whereas the use of compounded semaglutide is risky due to lack of regulation.

Compounded semaglutide should be avoided, given that these products are not controlled by the FDA, and adverse events have been reported in connection with compounded semaglutide.

In our clinical practice, patients have reported advertisements for “generic semaglutide” compounded with vitamins like vitamin B12 or B6. This is a significant area of concern because some vitamins (for instance, vitamin B6) are toxic at high doses.

We discussed the dangers of compounded semaglutide with our patient and told her that this isn’t something we recommend prescribing. If the patient didn’t want to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg to be available at her pharmacy, we discussed alternative medications used for the management of obesity, such as other FDA-approved GLP-1 agonists (that is, liraglutide 3.0 mg) and off-label medications. In this case, the patient opted to wait for semaglutide 2.4 mg because she preferred a weekly injectable medication, given her busy lifestyle as a new mom.

Dr. Schmitz, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tchang, of Weill Cornell Medicine and the Iris Cantor Women's Health Center, both in New York, serves or has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Gelesis and Novo Nordisk, and has received income from Gelesis.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
• Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
• Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
• Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
• In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
• Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
• Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.

IN PRACTICE:

The HypoPrevent study results “show the potential of a decision support tool and shared decision making to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia in older persons with type 2 diabetes,” and that “the tested decision tool can be effectively used by a busy primary care practice with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.

SOURCE:

The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.

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

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

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

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

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

The hugely popular weight loss agent semaglutide (approved as Wegovy for weight loss; Ozempic for type 2 diabetes; Novo Nordisk) received a pair of drug safety–related labeling additions from the Food and Drug Administration in late September for the Ozempic formulation.

The FDA added a warning to the drug-interaction section of the Ozempic label that reiterates a warning that is already in place in other label sections, reinforcing the message that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist Ozempic can potentially interact with the action of certain other agents to increase a person’s risk for hypoglycemia.

The added text says: “Ozempic stimulates insulin release in the presence of elevated blood glucose concentrations. Patients receiving Ozempic in combination with an insulin secretagogue (for instance, sulfonylurea) or insulin may have an increased risk of hypoglycemia, including severe hypoglycemia.”

This text was already included in both the “Warning and Precautions” and the “Adverse Reactions” sections of the label. The warning also advises, “The risk of hypoglycemia may be lowered by a reduction in the dose of sulfonylurea (or other concomitantly administered insulin secretagogue) or insulin. Inform patients using these concomitant medications of the risk of hypoglycemia and educate them on the signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia.”

Reports of ileus episodes after approval

The second addition concerns a new adverse reaction that was identified during the postmarketing experience.

The FDA has received more than 8,500 reports of gastrointestinal issues among patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Ileus is mentioned in 33 cases, including two deaths, associated with semaglutide. The FDA stopped short of saying there is a direct link between the drug and intestinal blockages.

“Because these reactions are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to drug exposure,” the FDA stated in its approval of the label update.

The same warning for the risk of intestinal blockages is already listed on the labels for tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) and semaglutide injection 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk).

The label change comes after a Louisiana woman filed a lawsuit in August that claims she was “severely injured” after using Mounjaro and Ozempic. She claimed the drug makers failed to disclose risks of vomiting and diarrhea due to inflammation of the stomach lining, as well as the risk of gastroparesis.

*Correction, 10/3/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the semaglutide formulation that received the updates. 

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

This year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes offers an in-depth look into “disease-modifying and disrupting therapies” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.

In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.  

Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.

“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.

Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
 

Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways

Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.

In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”

In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.

Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”

In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.

“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”

A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”

The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
 

Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive

For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”

Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.

Focus on complications: The known and the emerging

The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.

Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”

As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.  

According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”

Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes offers an in-depth look into “disease-modifying and disrupting therapies” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.

In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.  

Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.

“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.

Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
 

Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways

Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.

In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”

In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.

Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”

In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.

“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”

A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”

The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
 

Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive

For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”

Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.

Focus on complications: The known and the emerging

The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.

Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”

As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.  

According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”

Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes offers an in-depth look into “disease-modifying and disrupting therapies” in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

Noteworthy at the meeting, taking place Oct. 3-6, in Hamburg, Germany, will be final detailed data from the SURMOUNT-4 trial of the “twincretin” tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) on obesity. The top-line results, announced by the company in July, showed an average 21.1% weight loss at 36 weeks with tirzepatide injections once weekly among adults with overweight or obesity. The drug is approved in the United States and Europe for treating type 2 diabetes, and approval for obesity is expected in the United States later this year.

In addition, a symposium will present a new EASD/American Diabetes Association (ADA) consensus report, Hyperglycaemic Crisis in Adult Patients with Diabetes, scheduled to be simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care on Oct. 6.  

Aside from those, much of the EASD meeting content will feature smaller studies on both type 2 and type 1 diabetes, along with award lectures, symposia, debates, and lots of discussion on hot topics in diabetes and clinical challenges including complications. In essence, it will provide a forum for in-depth follow-up to the jam-packed clinical trial–filled agenda at the ADA meeting in June, said EASD Honorary Secretary Tina Vilsbøll, MD, clinical professor and head of clinic at the Steno Diabetes Center, Copenhagen.

“There were so many large trials at ADA that we just took them in without really having a chance to discuss them. ... There’s so much to discuss with all these new treatments, how do we place them in obesity and diabetes? ... All the data that we have from ADA will make good discussions at EASD,” Dr. Vilsbøll said in an interview.

Indeed, said EASD President Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, chair of endocrinology at University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Belgium, “We always come after ADA. That puts us in a position where we can take deeper dives into the data. ... EASD is a calmer meeting where you can really look at the details.”
 

Type 2 diabetes: Disease modifying in many ways

Dr. Mathieu told this news organization that a unifying theme for much of the EASD meeting’s content is “We are now entering the era of disease-modifying and disease-disrupting therapies” in both diabetes types.

In type 2, this means “getting to the root, which is obesity, so you’ll see a lot of presentations on the incretin system, but you also don’t get type 2 diabetes if you have an iron-clad beta cell. ... So, we also gave a lot of attention to basic translational research that helps us to understand the role of the beta cell in type 2 diabetes.”

In addition to SURMOUNT-4, there will be oral abstract sessions with follow-up data from the SURPASS series of studies of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, other abstract sessions, symposia about incretins and obesity, and an oral abstract session on beta cell function in both diabetes types.

Three debates will address controversial questions in the type 2 diabetes arena. In one, speakers will take opposite sides on “Initial combined therapy for type 2 diabetes: Should diabetes follow hypertension?”

In another, speakers will argue over “Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?” That’s an important question, Dr. Vilsbøll said.

“A person might be able to have a remission but go back if they regain the weight. Do we really have remission? How do we define it? Now, suddenly, we have tools to help people go in the right direction. Now we’re in a place where we can actually help our patients with their cravings and their body weight and all that. It’s more fun to discuss when we have the tools.”

A third debate will tackle the question of whether all people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease should be on [sodium-glucose co-transporter 2] (SGLT2) inhibitors “by default.”

The Minkowski Prize Lecture will address the regulation of energy and glucose metabolism by the dual incretin receptor agonists, while the EASD-Lilly Anniversary Prize Lecture will be about the role of ectopic lipid in insulin resistance and cardiometabolic disease.
 

Type 1 diabetes: Both disease modifying and disruptive

For type 1 diabetes, “disease-modifying” and “disruptive” approaches on the meeting agenda include new data on immune modulation for people in early stages in order to prevent or delay insulin dependence, islet transplantation including the use of stem cell–derived beta cells, and the latest in technology including automated insulin delivery systems, also known colloquially as the “artificial pancreas.”

Prize lectures about type 1 diabetes will include the Claude Bernard Lecture, on etiologies of autoimmune diabetes, the Albert Renold Lecture, on “disrupted RNA editing as a path to type 1 diabetes,” and the EASD/Novo Nordisk Foundation Diabetes Prize for Excellence Lecture on automated insulin delivery.

Focus on complications: The known and the emerging

The meeting also will focus a great deal on complications of diabetes, including the well-studied cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, and fatty liver disease as well as others that typically receive less attention, such as gastrointestinal problems and cardiomyopathy.

Another debate will address the question “Is it time to reclassify diabetes complications because microvascular and macrovascular classification is no longer sufficient?” And, the Camillo Golgi Lecture will cover “Diabetes Complications: From Classical to Emerging.”

As always, there’s much more on the agenda including pregnancy and diabetes, cystic fibrosis–derived diabetes, mental health in diabetes, COVID-19 and diabetes, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia unawareness.  

According to Dr. Vilsbøll, “Clinicians should come and enjoy all the great science we have, interact, and be inspired.”

Dr. Vilsbøll has served on scientific advisory panels, been part of speaker bureaus, and served as a consultant to and/or received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Mathieu serves or has served on the advisory panel for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Medtronic, ActoBio Therapeutics, Pfizer, Imcyse, Insulet, Zealand Pharma, Avotres, Mannkind, Sandoz, and Vertex. She has served on the speakers bureau for Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Financial compensation for these activities has been received by KU Leuven.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec titrated with a dosing guide app was both noninferior and superior to daily basal analogs in reducing A1c levels, with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
• A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
• Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
• Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec titrated with a dosing guide app was both noninferior and superior to daily basal analogs in reducing A1c levels, with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
• A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
• Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
• Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec titrated with a dosing guide app was both noninferior and superior to daily basal analogs in reducing A1c levels, with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
• A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
• Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
• Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).

IN PRACTICE:

“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.