User login
ADA: Screen all with type 2 diabetes for fatty liver disease
SAN DIEGO – and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.
Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).
“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.
The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”
Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”
The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR
The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.
The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.
Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”
The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.
“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”
Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”
The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone
Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.
In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.
And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”
However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”
The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.
Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.
“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”
Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.
Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).
“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.
The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”
Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”
The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR
The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.
The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.
Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”
The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.
“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”
Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”
The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone
Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.
In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.
And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”
However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”
The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.
Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.
“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”
Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – and provides new recommendations for management in those with the condition or who are at risk for it.
Liver disease affects up to 70% of people with type 2 diabetes and is common in people with prediabetes and in those with type 1 diabetes who also have obesity. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common form of liver disease in people with diabetes. It can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer and is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. The condition includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).
“The ADA has recognized that this has become a big problem for their patients because NASH is becoming the number one cause of cirrhosis in people with type 2 diabetes and the number one cause of liver transplantation in the United States, so we have to do something about it,” Kenneth Cusi, MD, who presented a summary of the new guidance at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, said in an interview.
The new ADA guidance was published as a mid-year update to the ADA’s Standards of Care in Diabetes–2023 in the section on “Comprehensive Medical Evaluation and Assessment of Comorbidities.”
Asked to comment, Atlanta endocrinologist Scott Isaacs, MD, said, “It is wonderful to see that the ADA has recognized NAFLD ... as the hepatic complication of type 2 diabetes and has updated the Standards of Care reflecting the current knowledge and evidence of this ubiquitous and often silent disease.”
The new ADA guidance aligns with those of other professional societies, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Society, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology.
Dr. Isaacs, who chaired the AACE guidance writing panel, noted, “The ADA update essentially repeats the same guidance in the AACE and AASLD documents. It is excellent to see this type of alignment of guidance among the major organizations.”
FIB-4: Easy calculation in the EHR
The ADA now advises screening all adults with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, particularly those with obesity or cardiometabolic risk factors or established cardiovascular disease – even those with normal liver enzyme levels. People with type 1 diabetes who have obesity and/or cardiovascular risk factors are also to be screened for NAFLD.
The recommended screening tool is the fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), a calculation that includes the patient’s age, liver enzyme levels, and platelet counts. A score of 1.3 or higher is considered high risk for clinically significant fibrosis and above 2.6 is very high-risk.
Dr. Cusi noted, “The reason we advise using the FIB-4 ... instead of liver enzymes as ADA advised in the past, is that now we know that 70% of people with type 2 diabetes have steatosis already and about one in five have fibrosis, but if you go by liver enzymes you will miss most of them. Liver enzymes are ineffective as a screening tool.”
The FIB-4 is “a simple tool we already have in our electronic health records (EHR) but we’re just simply not using it,” noted Dr. Cusi, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
Indeed, Dr. Isaacs said, “The FIB-4 is a simple ... great screening test because it is essentially free.” But he cautioned that it has some limitations.
“It is a good test for ruling out advanced liver disease but can have false positives and false negatives. The FIB-4 cutoffs need to be adjusted for persons over 65 years old and [should] not to be used for persons under 30 years old.”
Dr. Isaacs also pointed out that, while the calculation can be done from a website, “even this adds time to a clinician’s busy day. Ideally, the FIB-4 should be automatically calculated in the EHR or on the lab report, similar to the [estimated glomerular filtration rate] calculation [for kidney function] and flagged if greater than 1.3.”
The ADA update also provides guidance on follow-up for patients flagged with the FIB-4, including when referral to a gastroenterologist or hepatologist is appropriate.
Treatment: Lifestyle modification plus GLP-1 agonists or pioglitazone
Lifestyle modification is recommended for all adults with diabetes or prediabetes and NAFLD, particularly those with overweight or obesity.
In addition, the ADA now advises consideration of a using a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist with demonstrated benefits in NAFLD as adjunctive therapy to lifestyle interventions for weight loss in those with type 2 diabetes, particularly with overweight/obesity.
And for those with biopsy-proven NASH or who are identified with clinically significant liver fibrosis using non-invasive tests, either a GLP-1 agonist or pioglitazone are the “preferred treatments.”
However, insulin is the preferred treatment for hyperglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes who have decompensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Isaacs commented, “Pioglitazone has so many benefits and a few known risks ... it is an underused medication. It is very inexpensive. Pioglitazone should be considered as a first line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD.”
The ADA update also advises statin therapy for people with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, given their increased cardiovascular risk. However, statins are not recommended for people with decompensated cirrhosis because of limited safety and efficacy data.
Dr. Cusi noted that he has been advocating for fatty liver screening in people with type 2 diabetes for over a decade.
“Doctors have already been adopting it, but ADA as an organization in diabetes care has a big impact. I dreamed many years ago that the day would come when we would screen all people with type 2 diabetes, and that day is today.”
Dr. Cusi is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, BMS, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, Thera Technologies, and MSD. Dr. Isaacs reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
SAFE algorithm detects liver disease in general population
VIENNA – An algorithm, the Steatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator (SAFE), was developed to detect clinically significant fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). It is effective at detecting chronic liver disease from all causes with or without NAFLD in the general population, according the results of a U.S. population-based study. The algorithm was designed for use in primary care to help slow the steep rise in liver disease burden.
On the basis of the SAFE score, 61.3% of participants were at low risk for clinically significant fibrosis; 11.2% were at high risk; and 27.5% were at intermediate risk. Upon validation, very few of the low-risk participants had liver fibrosis, while nearly a third of those with a high-risk score had clinically significant fibrosis. In addition, a high percentage of the patients with high-risk SAFE scores had viral hepatitis and elevations in ferritin level.
“This is the first time that there has been a test that provides a score to detect low-risk liver disease in primary care,” said Ray Kim, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, senior investigator, who was speaking to this news organization at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver
“Primary care doctors currently detect liver disease through a serendipitous abnormal finding on ultrasound or blood tests that detect elevated transaminases, and then the patient is referred to a hepatologist, who figures out what is really going on,” said Dr. Kim.
“This approach is limited, so we need to get SAFE into primary care so these doctors can automatically calculate their scores, and if the patient is over 100 [high risk of chronic liver disease], then they need help [referral to a hepatologist].”
Liver deaths sharply rising
Public health data show that more people are dying of liver disease today than previously. Deaths in the United States have doubled over the past 20 years, said Dr. Kim. “If our mission is to help these patients and prevent death, [things are] moving in the wrong direction.”
He stressed that in order to change the direction, “primary care doctors need to engage with the issue and have appropriate tools to identify people with liver disease.”
Most often, the reason for this rise in deaths is that cases are being diagnosed at advanced stages of disease in which reversibility is limited, he added. “We want to move upstream where people might have early-stage disease and where we can intervene and make a difference.”
In an effort to help earlier detection of liver disease, the SAFE score was developed and validated by Dr. Kim and his colleagues to detect clinically significant (greater than stage 2) fibrosis in patients with NAFLD in primary care. The score is based upon age, body mass index, diabetes, platelet level, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels, and globulin level. A score of less than zero signifies that a patient is at low risk for liver fibrosis, while a score greater than 100 signifies a high risk of fibrosis. A score between 0 and 99 denotes intermediate risk of fibrosis.
“Unlike other noninvasive tests that detect advanced fibrosis, this one detects early-stage fibrosis. We’ve shown that the SAFE estimator is better than all other blood-based markers,” explained Dr. Kim.
Applying SAFE to the general population
In the study presented here at EASL, Dr. Kim aimed to expand the horizon for SAFE testing to the U.S. general population and to assess whether SAFE was effective in screening for chronic liver disease regardless of steatosis of the liver.
Together with first author Nakia Chung, MD, also from Stanford University, Dr. Kim applied the SAFE score to data from 7,156 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2017-2020. NHANES is representative of the noninstitutionalized, civilian population of the United States. It includes broad demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, including transient elastography data. FibroScans were first used in 2017, so the investigators had 3 years of FibroScan data with which to validate the score.
The researchers extrapolated the NHANES sample data to the U.S. population. They found that the proportion of adults with steatosis (CAP score > 274 dB/m) and significant fibrosis (LSM > 8.0 kPa) was 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.0%- 44.3%) and 8.9% (7.6%-10.2%), respectively. In addition, 11.3% (10.2%-12.5%) of the adult U.S. population demonstrated a significant amount of alcohol use, 2.3% (1.4%-3.3%) showed evidence of hepatitis B or C, and 5.4% (4.6%-6.2%) had elevated serum ferritin levels.
The researchers then stratified the patients according to previously defined SAFE tiers of low, intermediate, and high risk and projected findings to the U.S. general population.
“When we applied our score to the general population, we found multiple abnormalities in the high-risk groups [SAFE >100] having Fibroscan data that are consistent with stage 2 or higher fibrosis regardless of etiology, “Dr. Kim pointed out.
Results also showed that very few patients with SAFE less than 0 had liver fibrosis (4% among those with liver stiffness measure [LSM] > 8kPa, and 0.8% with LSM > 12kPa). Among those with SAFE > 100, nearly a third (31.5%) had LSM of > 8kPa, and 16.5% had LSM > 12kPa.
In addition to fibrosis, liver abnormalities were common among patients with SAFE greater than 100, including steatosis (68.0%), viral hepatitis (7.0%), and abnormal ferritin levels (12.9%); 10.8% of these patients used alcohol.
“Right now, some patients are referred, but on examination and FibroScan, they might actually be okay, so it it’s a waste of time and money for everyone. We can preempt all of this by doing a blood test and focusing on those people who really need a scan,” said Dr. Kim.
The researcher is now working with primary care colleagues to help further develop and integrate SAFE into the primary care setting.
Fibrosis score in patients with metabolic dysfunction
Also presenting at the same session on population health was Willem Pieter Brouwer, MD, PhD, from Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported results of a validation study of a new risk score – the Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fibrosis–5 (MAF-5) score – for use for people with metabolic dysfunction who are recommended for screening for liver fibrosis.
“We believe the MAF-5 score may be a good alternative to the FIB-4 [a liver fibrosis biomarker] for use in the referral pathway for liver health evaluation,” remarked Dr. Brouwer. “The clinical practice guidelines recommend using FIB-4 scores, but these have a poor-moderate performance in the population setting.
“We developed and validated our score in a population of 5,500 from the NHANES 2017-2020 cycle and validated the score in populations from Rotterdam, which is a cohort of elderly participants, and in fibrosis among patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from Colombia and Belgium,” he explained.
He also validated the score against different existing scoring systems and different methods of measuring liver stiffness and validated it for prognostic use to predict all-cause mortality in the NHANES III cohort.
Dr. Brouwer removed age as a factor of his new MAF-5 score; the score is thus stable for patients of all ages and is suitable for detecting liver disease in younger patients. “This is very important because these patients are currently underserved and have the most years of life to win.”
Referring to the SAFE score discussed by Dr. Kim, as well as other scores, he said, “The FIB-4, SAFE, and NFS [NAFLD fibrosis score] all include age in the scores, which causes problems and limitations in aging populations, as more and more patients will be referred due to an increasing score. Hence, the elderly are mostly all referred for liver checkups.”
Dr. Kim and Dr. Brouwer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – An algorithm, the Steatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator (SAFE), was developed to detect clinically significant fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). It is effective at detecting chronic liver disease from all causes with or without NAFLD in the general population, according the results of a U.S. population-based study. The algorithm was designed for use in primary care to help slow the steep rise in liver disease burden.
On the basis of the SAFE score, 61.3% of participants were at low risk for clinically significant fibrosis; 11.2% were at high risk; and 27.5% were at intermediate risk. Upon validation, very few of the low-risk participants had liver fibrosis, while nearly a third of those with a high-risk score had clinically significant fibrosis. In addition, a high percentage of the patients with high-risk SAFE scores had viral hepatitis and elevations in ferritin level.
“This is the first time that there has been a test that provides a score to detect low-risk liver disease in primary care,” said Ray Kim, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, senior investigator, who was speaking to this news organization at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver
“Primary care doctors currently detect liver disease through a serendipitous abnormal finding on ultrasound or blood tests that detect elevated transaminases, and then the patient is referred to a hepatologist, who figures out what is really going on,” said Dr. Kim.
“This approach is limited, so we need to get SAFE into primary care so these doctors can automatically calculate their scores, and if the patient is over 100 [high risk of chronic liver disease], then they need help [referral to a hepatologist].”
Liver deaths sharply rising
Public health data show that more people are dying of liver disease today than previously. Deaths in the United States have doubled over the past 20 years, said Dr. Kim. “If our mission is to help these patients and prevent death, [things are] moving in the wrong direction.”
He stressed that in order to change the direction, “primary care doctors need to engage with the issue and have appropriate tools to identify people with liver disease.”
Most often, the reason for this rise in deaths is that cases are being diagnosed at advanced stages of disease in which reversibility is limited, he added. “We want to move upstream where people might have early-stage disease and where we can intervene and make a difference.”
In an effort to help earlier detection of liver disease, the SAFE score was developed and validated by Dr. Kim and his colleagues to detect clinically significant (greater than stage 2) fibrosis in patients with NAFLD in primary care. The score is based upon age, body mass index, diabetes, platelet level, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels, and globulin level. A score of less than zero signifies that a patient is at low risk for liver fibrosis, while a score greater than 100 signifies a high risk of fibrosis. A score between 0 and 99 denotes intermediate risk of fibrosis.
“Unlike other noninvasive tests that detect advanced fibrosis, this one detects early-stage fibrosis. We’ve shown that the SAFE estimator is better than all other blood-based markers,” explained Dr. Kim.
Applying SAFE to the general population
In the study presented here at EASL, Dr. Kim aimed to expand the horizon for SAFE testing to the U.S. general population and to assess whether SAFE was effective in screening for chronic liver disease regardless of steatosis of the liver.
Together with first author Nakia Chung, MD, also from Stanford University, Dr. Kim applied the SAFE score to data from 7,156 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2017-2020. NHANES is representative of the noninstitutionalized, civilian population of the United States. It includes broad demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, including transient elastography data. FibroScans were first used in 2017, so the investigators had 3 years of FibroScan data with which to validate the score.
The researchers extrapolated the NHANES sample data to the U.S. population. They found that the proportion of adults with steatosis (CAP score > 274 dB/m) and significant fibrosis (LSM > 8.0 kPa) was 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.0%- 44.3%) and 8.9% (7.6%-10.2%), respectively. In addition, 11.3% (10.2%-12.5%) of the adult U.S. population demonstrated a significant amount of alcohol use, 2.3% (1.4%-3.3%) showed evidence of hepatitis B or C, and 5.4% (4.6%-6.2%) had elevated serum ferritin levels.
The researchers then stratified the patients according to previously defined SAFE tiers of low, intermediate, and high risk and projected findings to the U.S. general population.
“When we applied our score to the general population, we found multiple abnormalities in the high-risk groups [SAFE >100] having Fibroscan data that are consistent with stage 2 or higher fibrosis regardless of etiology, “Dr. Kim pointed out.
Results also showed that very few patients with SAFE less than 0 had liver fibrosis (4% among those with liver stiffness measure [LSM] > 8kPa, and 0.8% with LSM > 12kPa). Among those with SAFE > 100, nearly a third (31.5%) had LSM of > 8kPa, and 16.5% had LSM > 12kPa.
In addition to fibrosis, liver abnormalities were common among patients with SAFE greater than 100, including steatosis (68.0%), viral hepatitis (7.0%), and abnormal ferritin levels (12.9%); 10.8% of these patients used alcohol.
“Right now, some patients are referred, but on examination and FibroScan, they might actually be okay, so it it’s a waste of time and money for everyone. We can preempt all of this by doing a blood test and focusing on those people who really need a scan,” said Dr. Kim.
The researcher is now working with primary care colleagues to help further develop and integrate SAFE into the primary care setting.
Fibrosis score in patients with metabolic dysfunction
Also presenting at the same session on population health was Willem Pieter Brouwer, MD, PhD, from Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported results of a validation study of a new risk score – the Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fibrosis–5 (MAF-5) score – for use for people with metabolic dysfunction who are recommended for screening for liver fibrosis.
“We believe the MAF-5 score may be a good alternative to the FIB-4 [a liver fibrosis biomarker] for use in the referral pathway for liver health evaluation,” remarked Dr. Brouwer. “The clinical practice guidelines recommend using FIB-4 scores, but these have a poor-moderate performance in the population setting.
“We developed and validated our score in a population of 5,500 from the NHANES 2017-2020 cycle and validated the score in populations from Rotterdam, which is a cohort of elderly participants, and in fibrosis among patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from Colombia and Belgium,” he explained.
He also validated the score against different existing scoring systems and different methods of measuring liver stiffness and validated it for prognostic use to predict all-cause mortality in the NHANES III cohort.
Dr. Brouwer removed age as a factor of his new MAF-5 score; the score is thus stable for patients of all ages and is suitable for detecting liver disease in younger patients. “This is very important because these patients are currently underserved and have the most years of life to win.”
Referring to the SAFE score discussed by Dr. Kim, as well as other scores, he said, “The FIB-4, SAFE, and NFS [NAFLD fibrosis score] all include age in the scores, which causes problems and limitations in aging populations, as more and more patients will be referred due to an increasing score. Hence, the elderly are mostly all referred for liver checkups.”
Dr. Kim and Dr. Brouwer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – An algorithm, the Steatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator (SAFE), was developed to detect clinically significant fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). It is effective at detecting chronic liver disease from all causes with or without NAFLD in the general population, according the results of a U.S. population-based study. The algorithm was designed for use in primary care to help slow the steep rise in liver disease burden.
On the basis of the SAFE score, 61.3% of participants were at low risk for clinically significant fibrosis; 11.2% were at high risk; and 27.5% were at intermediate risk. Upon validation, very few of the low-risk participants had liver fibrosis, while nearly a third of those with a high-risk score had clinically significant fibrosis. In addition, a high percentage of the patients with high-risk SAFE scores had viral hepatitis and elevations in ferritin level.
“This is the first time that there has been a test that provides a score to detect low-risk liver disease in primary care,” said Ray Kim, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, senior investigator, who was speaking to this news organization at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver
“Primary care doctors currently detect liver disease through a serendipitous abnormal finding on ultrasound or blood tests that detect elevated transaminases, and then the patient is referred to a hepatologist, who figures out what is really going on,” said Dr. Kim.
“This approach is limited, so we need to get SAFE into primary care so these doctors can automatically calculate their scores, and if the patient is over 100 [high risk of chronic liver disease], then they need help [referral to a hepatologist].”
Liver deaths sharply rising
Public health data show that more people are dying of liver disease today than previously. Deaths in the United States have doubled over the past 20 years, said Dr. Kim. “If our mission is to help these patients and prevent death, [things are] moving in the wrong direction.”
He stressed that in order to change the direction, “primary care doctors need to engage with the issue and have appropriate tools to identify people with liver disease.”
Most often, the reason for this rise in deaths is that cases are being diagnosed at advanced stages of disease in which reversibility is limited, he added. “We want to move upstream where people might have early-stage disease and where we can intervene and make a difference.”
In an effort to help earlier detection of liver disease, the SAFE score was developed and validated by Dr. Kim and his colleagues to detect clinically significant (greater than stage 2) fibrosis in patients with NAFLD in primary care. The score is based upon age, body mass index, diabetes, platelet level, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels, and globulin level. A score of less than zero signifies that a patient is at low risk for liver fibrosis, while a score greater than 100 signifies a high risk of fibrosis. A score between 0 and 99 denotes intermediate risk of fibrosis.
“Unlike other noninvasive tests that detect advanced fibrosis, this one detects early-stage fibrosis. We’ve shown that the SAFE estimator is better than all other blood-based markers,” explained Dr. Kim.
Applying SAFE to the general population
In the study presented here at EASL, Dr. Kim aimed to expand the horizon for SAFE testing to the U.S. general population and to assess whether SAFE was effective in screening for chronic liver disease regardless of steatosis of the liver.
Together with first author Nakia Chung, MD, also from Stanford University, Dr. Kim applied the SAFE score to data from 7,156 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2017-2020. NHANES is representative of the noninstitutionalized, civilian population of the United States. It includes broad demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, including transient elastography data. FibroScans were first used in 2017, so the investigators had 3 years of FibroScan data with which to validate the score.
The researchers extrapolated the NHANES sample data to the U.S. population. They found that the proportion of adults with steatosis (CAP score > 274 dB/m) and significant fibrosis (LSM > 8.0 kPa) was 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.0%- 44.3%) and 8.9% (7.6%-10.2%), respectively. In addition, 11.3% (10.2%-12.5%) of the adult U.S. population demonstrated a significant amount of alcohol use, 2.3% (1.4%-3.3%) showed evidence of hepatitis B or C, and 5.4% (4.6%-6.2%) had elevated serum ferritin levels.
The researchers then stratified the patients according to previously defined SAFE tiers of low, intermediate, and high risk and projected findings to the U.S. general population.
“When we applied our score to the general population, we found multiple abnormalities in the high-risk groups [SAFE >100] having Fibroscan data that are consistent with stage 2 or higher fibrosis regardless of etiology, “Dr. Kim pointed out.
Results also showed that very few patients with SAFE less than 0 had liver fibrosis (4% among those with liver stiffness measure [LSM] > 8kPa, and 0.8% with LSM > 12kPa). Among those with SAFE > 100, nearly a third (31.5%) had LSM of > 8kPa, and 16.5% had LSM > 12kPa.
In addition to fibrosis, liver abnormalities were common among patients with SAFE greater than 100, including steatosis (68.0%), viral hepatitis (7.0%), and abnormal ferritin levels (12.9%); 10.8% of these patients used alcohol.
“Right now, some patients are referred, but on examination and FibroScan, they might actually be okay, so it it’s a waste of time and money for everyone. We can preempt all of this by doing a blood test and focusing on those people who really need a scan,” said Dr. Kim.
The researcher is now working with primary care colleagues to help further develop and integrate SAFE into the primary care setting.
Fibrosis score in patients with metabolic dysfunction
Also presenting at the same session on population health was Willem Pieter Brouwer, MD, PhD, from Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported results of a validation study of a new risk score – the Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fibrosis–5 (MAF-5) score – for use for people with metabolic dysfunction who are recommended for screening for liver fibrosis.
“We believe the MAF-5 score may be a good alternative to the FIB-4 [a liver fibrosis biomarker] for use in the referral pathway for liver health evaluation,” remarked Dr. Brouwer. “The clinical practice guidelines recommend using FIB-4 scores, but these have a poor-moderate performance in the population setting.
“We developed and validated our score in a population of 5,500 from the NHANES 2017-2020 cycle and validated the score in populations from Rotterdam, which is a cohort of elderly participants, and in fibrosis among patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from Colombia and Belgium,” he explained.
He also validated the score against different existing scoring systems and different methods of measuring liver stiffness and validated it for prognostic use to predict all-cause mortality in the NHANES III cohort.
Dr. Brouwer removed age as a factor of his new MAF-5 score; the score is thus stable for patients of all ages and is suitable for detecting liver disease in younger patients. “This is very important because these patients are currently underserved and have the most years of life to win.”
Referring to the SAFE score discussed by Dr. Kim, as well as other scores, he said, “The FIB-4, SAFE, and NFS [NAFLD fibrosis score] all include age in the scores, which causes problems and limitations in aging populations, as more and more patients will be referred due to an increasing score. Hence, the elderly are mostly all referred for liver checkups.”
Dr. Kim and Dr. Brouwer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ILC 2023
Children with type 2 diabetes face dire complications as young adults
SAN DIEGO – , show findings from the TODAY prospective, longitudinal study of 699 U.S. children newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
Arterial stiffness and worsened cardiac function often appear in these children within 2-5 years of diagnosis and seem driven in part by the development of hypertension and worsening hemoglobin A1c levels, said Rachelle G. Gandica, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Indeed, an A1c greater than 6.2% at study entry generally predicts these children will fail treatment and is a red flag, said Dr. Gandica. “I teach fellows this all the time, that if a child’s A1c is above 6.2% they will fail, and you have to watch for that,” she noted.
The results from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study showed, for example, an overall cardiovascular event rate of 3.7/1,000 patient-years in a population that had just reached an average age of 26 years old, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for an average of more than 13 years.
During follow-up, there were six cases of congestive heart failure, four myocardial infarctions, four strokes, and three cases of coronary artery disease in the cohort. Hypertension ballooned from a prevalence of 19% at study entry to 68% by the end of follow-up.
Dr. Gandica called these and other findings “sobering details” that document the toll type 2 diabetes takes on children, who averaged 14 years old at the time they entered the study – when their diabetes had been diagnosed for an average of about 8 months – and then underwent an average 12.6 years of follow-up.
Investigators also found:
- After more than 12 years of type 2 diabetes, 49% of the cohort had developed diabetic retinopathy, with 3.5% having macular edema.
- Kidney damage (diabetic nephropathy) affected 8% of the cohort at entry, and then increased to a prevalence of 55% after up to 14 years of follow-up.
- Among the 452 girls who entered the study, 141 (31%) later became pregnant, with a total of 260 pregnancies. A quarter of the pregnancies resulted in preterm deliveries (43% went to term), 25% resulted in miscarriage or fetal demise, with the remaining 8% having elective terminations or unknown outcomes.
- Complications in neonates were common, including hypoglycemia (29%), respiratory disorder (19%), and cardiac issues (10%).
Dire prognosis a reason to aggressively treat these patients
It has become apparent from this and other studies in youth with type 2 diabetes that the difference in outcomes between youth and adults is stark and could indicate that type 2 diabetes in childhood or adolescence likely has a different underlying pathology and natural history, with a more aggressive disease course.
The dire prognosis is therefore a reason to aggressively treat these patients with antidiabetic medications from drug classes with proven cardiovascular disease protection, specifically sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, said Dr. Gandica, a pediatric endocrinologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.
“It’s fair to say we now more aggressively use [these agents] in children,” she said in an interview, and noted the very recent approval, just last week, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly) for children as young as 10 years.
“I look forward to prescribing empagliflozin to children with type 2 diabetes to lower their blood pressure and get additional cardiovascular disease benefits,” Dr. Gandica said.
Other newer type 2 diabetes medications approved for U.S. children in the past few years include the once-weekly injectable GLP-1 agonist exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older, in 2021, and the daily injectable GLP-1 agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019.
A1c spike heralds treatment failure: ‘Watch for that’
TODAY enrolled 699 children with type 2 diabetes for an average of 8 months since diagnosis at 16 U.S. sites starting in 2004. The protocol began with a run-in phase of up to 6 months, when participating children came off any preexisting antidiabetes medications and then began a metformin-only regimen to bring A1c below 8.0%. If achieved, patients were eligible to continue to randomization.
Participants were randomized to one of three treatment groups: metformin alone, metformin plus lifestyle interventions, or metformin plus rosiglitazone (Avandia, GSK). The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment failure, defined as A1c that rose back above 8.0% for at least 6 months or persistent metabolic decompensation during initial follow-up, for an average of just under 4 years.
The results showed that only metformin plus rosiglitazone significantly surpassed metformin alone for preventing treatment failure, reported in 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine
More recent reports on findings from longer-term follow-up have appeared in several journals, including the cardiovascular disease results, reported in 2021 also in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Another key finding from TODAY is the importance of A1c as a risk marker for impending treatment failure. Study findingsshow that an A1c of 6.2% or higher when children entered the study best predicted loss of glycemic control during follow-up. Also, a rise in A1c of at least 0.5 percentage points was significantly associated with loss of glycemic control within the following 3-6 months.
That’s an important message for clinicians, Dr. Gandica concluded.
TODAY and TODAY2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Gandica has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – , show findings from the TODAY prospective, longitudinal study of 699 U.S. children newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
Arterial stiffness and worsened cardiac function often appear in these children within 2-5 years of diagnosis and seem driven in part by the development of hypertension and worsening hemoglobin A1c levels, said Rachelle G. Gandica, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Indeed, an A1c greater than 6.2% at study entry generally predicts these children will fail treatment and is a red flag, said Dr. Gandica. “I teach fellows this all the time, that if a child’s A1c is above 6.2% they will fail, and you have to watch for that,” she noted.
The results from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study showed, for example, an overall cardiovascular event rate of 3.7/1,000 patient-years in a population that had just reached an average age of 26 years old, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for an average of more than 13 years.
During follow-up, there were six cases of congestive heart failure, four myocardial infarctions, four strokes, and three cases of coronary artery disease in the cohort. Hypertension ballooned from a prevalence of 19% at study entry to 68% by the end of follow-up.
Dr. Gandica called these and other findings “sobering details” that document the toll type 2 diabetes takes on children, who averaged 14 years old at the time they entered the study – when their diabetes had been diagnosed for an average of about 8 months – and then underwent an average 12.6 years of follow-up.
Investigators also found:
- After more than 12 years of type 2 diabetes, 49% of the cohort had developed diabetic retinopathy, with 3.5% having macular edema.
- Kidney damage (diabetic nephropathy) affected 8% of the cohort at entry, and then increased to a prevalence of 55% after up to 14 years of follow-up.
- Among the 452 girls who entered the study, 141 (31%) later became pregnant, with a total of 260 pregnancies. A quarter of the pregnancies resulted in preterm deliveries (43% went to term), 25% resulted in miscarriage or fetal demise, with the remaining 8% having elective terminations or unknown outcomes.
- Complications in neonates were common, including hypoglycemia (29%), respiratory disorder (19%), and cardiac issues (10%).
Dire prognosis a reason to aggressively treat these patients
It has become apparent from this and other studies in youth with type 2 diabetes that the difference in outcomes between youth and adults is stark and could indicate that type 2 diabetes in childhood or adolescence likely has a different underlying pathology and natural history, with a more aggressive disease course.
The dire prognosis is therefore a reason to aggressively treat these patients with antidiabetic medications from drug classes with proven cardiovascular disease protection, specifically sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, said Dr. Gandica, a pediatric endocrinologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.
“It’s fair to say we now more aggressively use [these agents] in children,” she said in an interview, and noted the very recent approval, just last week, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly) for children as young as 10 years.
“I look forward to prescribing empagliflozin to children with type 2 diabetes to lower their blood pressure and get additional cardiovascular disease benefits,” Dr. Gandica said.
Other newer type 2 diabetes medications approved for U.S. children in the past few years include the once-weekly injectable GLP-1 agonist exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older, in 2021, and the daily injectable GLP-1 agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019.
A1c spike heralds treatment failure: ‘Watch for that’
TODAY enrolled 699 children with type 2 diabetes for an average of 8 months since diagnosis at 16 U.S. sites starting in 2004. The protocol began with a run-in phase of up to 6 months, when participating children came off any preexisting antidiabetes medications and then began a metformin-only regimen to bring A1c below 8.0%. If achieved, patients were eligible to continue to randomization.
Participants were randomized to one of three treatment groups: metformin alone, metformin plus lifestyle interventions, or metformin plus rosiglitazone (Avandia, GSK). The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment failure, defined as A1c that rose back above 8.0% for at least 6 months or persistent metabolic decompensation during initial follow-up, for an average of just under 4 years.
The results showed that only metformin plus rosiglitazone significantly surpassed metformin alone for preventing treatment failure, reported in 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine
More recent reports on findings from longer-term follow-up have appeared in several journals, including the cardiovascular disease results, reported in 2021 also in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Another key finding from TODAY is the importance of A1c as a risk marker for impending treatment failure. Study findingsshow that an A1c of 6.2% or higher when children entered the study best predicted loss of glycemic control during follow-up. Also, a rise in A1c of at least 0.5 percentage points was significantly associated with loss of glycemic control within the following 3-6 months.
That’s an important message for clinicians, Dr. Gandica concluded.
TODAY and TODAY2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Gandica has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – , show findings from the TODAY prospective, longitudinal study of 699 U.S. children newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
Arterial stiffness and worsened cardiac function often appear in these children within 2-5 years of diagnosis and seem driven in part by the development of hypertension and worsening hemoglobin A1c levels, said Rachelle G. Gandica, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Indeed, an A1c greater than 6.2% at study entry generally predicts these children will fail treatment and is a red flag, said Dr. Gandica. “I teach fellows this all the time, that if a child’s A1c is above 6.2% they will fail, and you have to watch for that,” she noted.
The results from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study showed, for example, an overall cardiovascular event rate of 3.7/1,000 patient-years in a population that had just reached an average age of 26 years old, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for an average of more than 13 years.
During follow-up, there were six cases of congestive heart failure, four myocardial infarctions, four strokes, and three cases of coronary artery disease in the cohort. Hypertension ballooned from a prevalence of 19% at study entry to 68% by the end of follow-up.
Dr. Gandica called these and other findings “sobering details” that document the toll type 2 diabetes takes on children, who averaged 14 years old at the time they entered the study – when their diabetes had been diagnosed for an average of about 8 months – and then underwent an average 12.6 years of follow-up.
Investigators also found:
- After more than 12 years of type 2 diabetes, 49% of the cohort had developed diabetic retinopathy, with 3.5% having macular edema.
- Kidney damage (diabetic nephropathy) affected 8% of the cohort at entry, and then increased to a prevalence of 55% after up to 14 years of follow-up.
- Among the 452 girls who entered the study, 141 (31%) later became pregnant, with a total of 260 pregnancies. A quarter of the pregnancies resulted in preterm deliveries (43% went to term), 25% resulted in miscarriage or fetal demise, with the remaining 8% having elective terminations or unknown outcomes.
- Complications in neonates were common, including hypoglycemia (29%), respiratory disorder (19%), and cardiac issues (10%).
Dire prognosis a reason to aggressively treat these patients
It has become apparent from this and other studies in youth with type 2 diabetes that the difference in outcomes between youth and adults is stark and could indicate that type 2 diabetes in childhood or adolescence likely has a different underlying pathology and natural history, with a more aggressive disease course.
The dire prognosis is therefore a reason to aggressively treat these patients with antidiabetic medications from drug classes with proven cardiovascular disease protection, specifically sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, said Dr. Gandica, a pediatric endocrinologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.
“It’s fair to say we now more aggressively use [these agents] in children,” she said in an interview, and noted the very recent approval, just last week, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly) for children as young as 10 years.
“I look forward to prescribing empagliflozin to children with type 2 diabetes to lower their blood pressure and get additional cardiovascular disease benefits,” Dr. Gandica said.
Other newer type 2 diabetes medications approved for U.S. children in the past few years include the once-weekly injectable GLP-1 agonist exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older, in 2021, and the daily injectable GLP-1 agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019.
A1c spike heralds treatment failure: ‘Watch for that’
TODAY enrolled 699 children with type 2 diabetes for an average of 8 months since diagnosis at 16 U.S. sites starting in 2004. The protocol began with a run-in phase of up to 6 months, when participating children came off any preexisting antidiabetes medications and then began a metformin-only regimen to bring A1c below 8.0%. If achieved, patients were eligible to continue to randomization.
Participants were randomized to one of three treatment groups: metformin alone, metformin plus lifestyle interventions, or metformin plus rosiglitazone (Avandia, GSK). The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment failure, defined as A1c that rose back above 8.0% for at least 6 months or persistent metabolic decompensation during initial follow-up, for an average of just under 4 years.
The results showed that only metformin plus rosiglitazone significantly surpassed metformin alone for preventing treatment failure, reported in 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine
More recent reports on findings from longer-term follow-up have appeared in several journals, including the cardiovascular disease results, reported in 2021 also in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Another key finding from TODAY is the importance of A1c as a risk marker for impending treatment failure. Study findingsshow that an A1c of 6.2% or higher when children entered the study best predicted loss of glycemic control during follow-up. Also, a rise in A1c of at least 0.5 percentage points was significantly associated with loss of glycemic control within the following 3-6 months.
That’s an important message for clinicians, Dr. Gandica concluded.
TODAY and TODAY2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Gandica has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
Cagrilintide with semaglutide: A way to prevent diabesity?
SAN DIEGO – Coadministration of the long-acting amylin analog cagrilintide plus the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, dubbed CagriSema, resulted in significantly greater weight loss, along with improved measures of glucose control, than either agent alone, in a small, short phase 2 trial of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Juan P. Frias, MD, presented the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, which were simultaneously published in The Lancet.
“Overall, in this phase 2 trial with pharmacotherapies in this population. CagriSema also had an acceptable safety profile,” the researchers summarized.
“These data support further investigation of CagriSema in people with type 2 diabetes in longer and larger phase 3 studies,” said Dr. Frias, from Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles.
In reply to audience questions, he said he was “pleasantly surprised” with the low gastrointestinal adverse events, which may have been related to the slower dosing titration. He also noted that patients in the study did not receive dietary counseling, unlike in the STEP-2 trial, where weight loss with semaglutide was greater than in this study.
Time in normal blood glucose range in the CagriSema group went from 40% at baseline to 89% at week 32, Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, reported during a follow-up presentation that focused on the trial’s CGM findings.
“I was extremely happy that we were allowed to include CGM measurement because it does give you more information, especially in a short-term trial,” said Dr. Mathieu, from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). The CGM data were collected for 10 days preceding baseline and at weeks 20 and 32.
“At this point in time, it is difficult to make a final determination” about potential future clinical applications, session chair Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was a phase 2 randomized controlled trial, so more patients are needed.
“It’s very interesting what was found with the use of CGM, which makes us think whether they should always be part of [trials] versus the more traditional A1c assessment,” Dr. Patorno added.
‘Synergistic effect for both glycemic control and weight loss’
“CagriSema is the next in a series of gut hormone analogs with the potential to herald a new era in treating obesity and preventing diabesity,” the coexistence of type 2 diabetes and obesity, Caroline M. Apovian, MD, and Marie E. McDonnell, MD, both also from Harvard Medical School, wrote in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet.
Cagrilintide plus semaglutide each “effectively delay gastric emptying, suppress glucagon release, and are involved in the regulation of appetite and satiety in the brain,” they noted.
The results – a substantial difference in effect size between the combination drug and each component alone – show that “there is a synergistic effect for both glycemic control and weight loss.
“The weight loss seen in this phase 2 trial of CagriSema in 32 weeks could predict a phase 3 trial result over 1 year that might surpass that of semaglutide (14.9%) and tirzepatide (20.9%) in a population without type 2 diabetes, and might equal that of bariatric surgery (23.5%-30.4%),” they speculated.
However, it’s still early days, the editorialists cautioned. Study limitations include that it was a small trial and the mean duration of type 2 diabetes at baseline was shorter in the CagriSema group (6.4 years) than in the semaglutide or cagrilintide alone groups (9.2 years and 10.7 years, respectively).
The rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was also higher in the CagriSema group (58%) than in the other two groups (about 33%). However, the adverse events “were all mild or moderate and not severe enough to lead to participant withdrawal,” they noted. “Remarkably, only one participant, from the semaglutide group, withdrew due to adverse events during the 32-week trial across all groups.
“Although bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for severe obesity, offering the most robust weight reduction, remission of type 2 diabetes, and reduced cardiovascular mortality,” the study suggests that “combination metabolic hormonal therapy could offer all three of these outcomes in the near future,” Dr. Apovian and Dr. McDonnell wrote.
92 patients randomized to three treatments
In the study, researchers randomized 92 adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of at least 27 kg/m2 taking metformin alone (73%) or metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (27%), at 17 sites in the United States, between August and October 2021.
Patients were a mean age of 58 years and 64% were men. Mean A1c was 8.4% and mean bodyweight was 106 kg (234 lb).
They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive up to maximal once-weekly doses of 2.4 mg semaglutide and 2.4 mg cagrilintide (CagriSema, given in two injector pens), 2.4 mg semaglutide (plus placebo), or 2.4 mg cagrilintide (plus placebo).
Both cagrilintide and semaglutide are manufactured by the Danish company Novo Nordisk. Semaglutide is already approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes, as Ozempic, and as the weight-loss drug Wegovy. Cagrilintide is not yet approved.
Treatment doses were escalated every 4 weeks from 0.25 to 0.5 to 1.0 to 1.7 mg to a maintenance dose of 2.4 mg at 16 weeks. Patients then entered a 16-week maintenance phase followed by a 5-week follow-up period.
Among the key findings, the reduction in A1c at 32 weeks, compared with baseline (primary outcome), was –2.2% with CagriSema, –1.8% with semaglutide, and –0.9% with cagrilintide, but was not significantly greater with CagriSema versus semaglutide (–0.4%; P = .07).
However, in a secondary outcome, there was a significantly greater difference in A1c at 32 weeks with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (–1.3%; P < .0001). Moreover, 89% of patients in the CagriSema group reached an A1c less than 7%.
In other secondary outcomes, there was a significantly greater reduction in body weight at 32 weeks with CagriSema versus cagrilintide or semaglutide, with 71% of patients in the CagriSema group achieving greater than 10% reduction in body weight. Patients in the CagriSema group also had clinically relevant improvements in blood pressure, lipids, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
Adverse events – reported in 68% of patients with CagriSema versus 71% with semaglutide and 80% with cagrilintide – were mostly mild or moderate gastrointestinal events, consistent with those seen in these two drug classes.
At week 32, time in range was 89% with CagriSema versus 76% with semaglutide and 72% with cagrilintide.
“Our phase 2 clinical trial is the first study to report efficacy and safety data for treatment with the combination of a GLP-1 agonist and an amylin analog in participants with type 2 diabetes,” the researchers summarize. “These data support further investigation of CagriSema in this population in longer and larger phase 3 studies.”
This trial was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Frias, Dr. Mathieu, Dr. Apovian, and Dr. McDonnell reported financial relationships with a number of companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – Coadministration of the long-acting amylin analog cagrilintide plus the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, dubbed CagriSema, resulted in significantly greater weight loss, along with improved measures of glucose control, than either agent alone, in a small, short phase 2 trial of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Juan P. Frias, MD, presented the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, which were simultaneously published in The Lancet.
“Overall, in this phase 2 trial with pharmacotherapies in this population. CagriSema also had an acceptable safety profile,” the researchers summarized.
“These data support further investigation of CagriSema in people with type 2 diabetes in longer and larger phase 3 studies,” said Dr. Frias, from Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles.
In reply to audience questions, he said he was “pleasantly surprised” with the low gastrointestinal adverse events, which may have been related to the slower dosing titration. He also noted that patients in the study did not receive dietary counseling, unlike in the STEP-2 trial, where weight loss with semaglutide was greater than in this study.
Time in normal blood glucose range in the CagriSema group went from 40% at baseline to 89% at week 32, Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, reported during a follow-up presentation that focused on the trial’s CGM findings.
“I was extremely happy that we were allowed to include CGM measurement because it does give you more information, especially in a short-term trial,” said Dr. Mathieu, from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). The CGM data were collected for 10 days preceding baseline and at weeks 20 and 32.
“At this point in time, it is difficult to make a final determination” about potential future clinical applications, session chair Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was a phase 2 randomized controlled trial, so more patients are needed.
“It’s very interesting what was found with the use of CGM, which makes us think whether they should always be part of [trials] versus the more traditional A1c assessment,” Dr. Patorno added.
‘Synergistic effect for both glycemic control and weight loss’
“CagriSema is the next in a series of gut hormone analogs with the potential to herald a new era in treating obesity and preventing diabesity,” the coexistence of type 2 diabetes and obesity, Caroline M. Apovian, MD, and Marie E. McDonnell, MD, both also from Harvard Medical School, wrote in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet.
Cagrilintide plus semaglutide each “effectively delay gastric emptying, suppress glucagon release, and are involved in the regulation of appetite and satiety in the brain,” they noted.
The results – a substantial difference in effect size between the combination drug and each component alone – show that “there is a synergistic effect for both glycemic control and weight loss.
“The weight loss seen in this phase 2 trial of CagriSema in 32 weeks could predict a phase 3 trial result over 1 year that might surpass that of semaglutide (14.9%) and tirzepatide (20.9%) in a population without type 2 diabetes, and might equal that of bariatric surgery (23.5%-30.4%),” they speculated.
However, it’s still early days, the editorialists cautioned. Study limitations include that it was a small trial and the mean duration of type 2 diabetes at baseline was shorter in the CagriSema group (6.4 years) than in the semaglutide or cagrilintide alone groups (9.2 years and 10.7 years, respectively).
The rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was also higher in the CagriSema group (58%) than in the other two groups (about 33%). However, the adverse events “were all mild or moderate and not severe enough to lead to participant withdrawal,” they noted. “Remarkably, only one participant, from the semaglutide group, withdrew due to adverse events during the 32-week trial across all groups.
“Although bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for severe obesity, offering the most robust weight reduction, remission of type 2 diabetes, and reduced cardiovascular mortality,” the study suggests that “combination metabolic hormonal therapy could offer all three of these outcomes in the near future,” Dr. Apovian and Dr. McDonnell wrote.
92 patients randomized to three treatments
In the study, researchers randomized 92 adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of at least 27 kg/m2 taking metformin alone (73%) or metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (27%), at 17 sites in the United States, between August and October 2021.
Patients were a mean age of 58 years and 64% were men. Mean A1c was 8.4% and mean bodyweight was 106 kg (234 lb).
They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive up to maximal once-weekly doses of 2.4 mg semaglutide and 2.4 mg cagrilintide (CagriSema, given in two injector pens), 2.4 mg semaglutide (plus placebo), or 2.4 mg cagrilintide (plus placebo).
Both cagrilintide and semaglutide are manufactured by the Danish company Novo Nordisk. Semaglutide is already approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes, as Ozempic, and as the weight-loss drug Wegovy. Cagrilintide is not yet approved.
Treatment doses were escalated every 4 weeks from 0.25 to 0.5 to 1.0 to 1.7 mg to a maintenance dose of 2.4 mg at 16 weeks. Patients then entered a 16-week maintenance phase followed by a 5-week follow-up period.
Among the key findings, the reduction in A1c at 32 weeks, compared with baseline (primary outcome), was –2.2% with CagriSema, –1.8% with semaglutide, and –0.9% with cagrilintide, but was not significantly greater with CagriSema versus semaglutide (–0.4%; P = .07).
However, in a secondary outcome, there was a significantly greater difference in A1c at 32 weeks with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (–1.3%; P < .0001). Moreover, 89% of patients in the CagriSema group reached an A1c less than 7%.
In other secondary outcomes, there was a significantly greater reduction in body weight at 32 weeks with CagriSema versus cagrilintide or semaglutide, with 71% of patients in the CagriSema group achieving greater than 10% reduction in body weight. Patients in the CagriSema group also had clinically relevant improvements in blood pressure, lipids, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
Adverse events – reported in 68% of patients with CagriSema versus 71% with semaglutide and 80% with cagrilintide – were mostly mild or moderate gastrointestinal events, consistent with those seen in these two drug classes.
At week 32, time in range was 89% with CagriSema versus 76% with semaglutide and 72% with cagrilintide.
“Our phase 2 clinical trial is the first study to report efficacy and safety data for treatment with the combination of a GLP-1 agonist and an amylin analog in participants with type 2 diabetes,” the researchers summarize. “These data support further investigation of CagriSema in this population in longer and larger phase 3 studies.”
This trial was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Frias, Dr. Mathieu, Dr. Apovian, and Dr. McDonnell reported financial relationships with a number of companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – Coadministration of the long-acting amylin analog cagrilintide plus the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide, dubbed CagriSema, resulted in significantly greater weight loss, along with improved measures of glucose control, than either agent alone, in a small, short phase 2 trial of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Juan P. Frias, MD, presented the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, which were simultaneously published in The Lancet.
“Overall, in this phase 2 trial with pharmacotherapies in this population. CagriSema also had an acceptable safety profile,” the researchers summarized.
“These data support further investigation of CagriSema in people with type 2 diabetes in longer and larger phase 3 studies,” said Dr. Frias, from Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles.
In reply to audience questions, he said he was “pleasantly surprised” with the low gastrointestinal adverse events, which may have been related to the slower dosing titration. He also noted that patients in the study did not receive dietary counseling, unlike in the STEP-2 trial, where weight loss with semaglutide was greater than in this study.
Time in normal blood glucose range in the CagriSema group went from 40% at baseline to 89% at week 32, Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, reported during a follow-up presentation that focused on the trial’s CGM findings.
“I was extremely happy that we were allowed to include CGM measurement because it does give you more information, especially in a short-term trial,” said Dr. Mathieu, from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). The CGM data were collected for 10 days preceding baseline and at weeks 20 and 32.
“At this point in time, it is difficult to make a final determination” about potential future clinical applications, session chair Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This was a phase 2 randomized controlled trial, so more patients are needed.
“It’s very interesting what was found with the use of CGM, which makes us think whether they should always be part of [trials] versus the more traditional A1c assessment,” Dr. Patorno added.
‘Synergistic effect for both glycemic control and weight loss’
“CagriSema is the next in a series of gut hormone analogs with the potential to herald a new era in treating obesity and preventing diabesity,” the coexistence of type 2 diabetes and obesity, Caroline M. Apovian, MD, and Marie E. McDonnell, MD, both also from Harvard Medical School, wrote in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet.
Cagrilintide plus semaglutide each “effectively delay gastric emptying, suppress glucagon release, and are involved in the regulation of appetite and satiety in the brain,” they noted.
The results – a substantial difference in effect size between the combination drug and each component alone – show that “there is a synergistic effect for both glycemic control and weight loss.
“The weight loss seen in this phase 2 trial of CagriSema in 32 weeks could predict a phase 3 trial result over 1 year that might surpass that of semaglutide (14.9%) and tirzepatide (20.9%) in a population without type 2 diabetes, and might equal that of bariatric surgery (23.5%-30.4%),” they speculated.
However, it’s still early days, the editorialists cautioned. Study limitations include that it was a small trial and the mean duration of type 2 diabetes at baseline was shorter in the CagriSema group (6.4 years) than in the semaglutide or cagrilintide alone groups (9.2 years and 10.7 years, respectively).
The rate of gastrointestinal adverse events was also higher in the CagriSema group (58%) than in the other two groups (about 33%). However, the adverse events “were all mild or moderate and not severe enough to lead to participant withdrawal,” they noted. “Remarkably, only one participant, from the semaglutide group, withdrew due to adverse events during the 32-week trial across all groups.
“Although bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for severe obesity, offering the most robust weight reduction, remission of type 2 diabetes, and reduced cardiovascular mortality,” the study suggests that “combination metabolic hormonal therapy could offer all three of these outcomes in the near future,” Dr. Apovian and Dr. McDonnell wrote.
92 patients randomized to three treatments
In the study, researchers randomized 92 adults with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index of at least 27 kg/m2 taking metformin alone (73%) or metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (27%), at 17 sites in the United States, between August and October 2021.
Patients were a mean age of 58 years and 64% were men. Mean A1c was 8.4% and mean bodyweight was 106 kg (234 lb).
They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive up to maximal once-weekly doses of 2.4 mg semaglutide and 2.4 mg cagrilintide (CagriSema, given in two injector pens), 2.4 mg semaglutide (plus placebo), or 2.4 mg cagrilintide (plus placebo).
Both cagrilintide and semaglutide are manufactured by the Danish company Novo Nordisk. Semaglutide is already approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes, as Ozempic, and as the weight-loss drug Wegovy. Cagrilintide is not yet approved.
Treatment doses were escalated every 4 weeks from 0.25 to 0.5 to 1.0 to 1.7 mg to a maintenance dose of 2.4 mg at 16 weeks. Patients then entered a 16-week maintenance phase followed by a 5-week follow-up period.
Among the key findings, the reduction in A1c at 32 weeks, compared with baseline (primary outcome), was –2.2% with CagriSema, –1.8% with semaglutide, and –0.9% with cagrilintide, but was not significantly greater with CagriSema versus semaglutide (–0.4%; P = .07).
However, in a secondary outcome, there was a significantly greater difference in A1c at 32 weeks with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (–1.3%; P < .0001). Moreover, 89% of patients in the CagriSema group reached an A1c less than 7%.
In other secondary outcomes, there was a significantly greater reduction in body weight at 32 weeks with CagriSema versus cagrilintide or semaglutide, with 71% of patients in the CagriSema group achieving greater than 10% reduction in body weight. Patients in the CagriSema group also had clinically relevant improvements in blood pressure, lipids, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
Adverse events – reported in 68% of patients with CagriSema versus 71% with semaglutide and 80% with cagrilintide – were mostly mild or moderate gastrointestinal events, consistent with those seen in these two drug classes.
At week 32, time in range was 89% with CagriSema versus 76% with semaglutide and 72% with cagrilintide.
“Our phase 2 clinical trial is the first study to report efficacy and safety data for treatment with the combination of a GLP-1 agonist and an amylin analog in participants with type 2 diabetes,” the researchers summarize. “These data support further investigation of CagriSema in this population in longer and larger phase 3 studies.”
This trial was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Frias, Dr. Mathieu, Dr. Apovian, and Dr. McDonnell reported financial relationships with a number of companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
OASIS and PIONEER PLUS support high-dose oral semaglutide
according to the results of two new phase 3 clinical trials.
The two trials, OASIS in patients with overweight or obesity without diabetes and PIONEER PLUS in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet.
Filip K. Knop, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, presented highlights of the OASIS-1 results, and Vanita R. Aroda, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, presented key findings of PIONEER PLUS, during a press briefing prior to the ADA session.
OASIS-1 showed that “oral semaglutide 50 mg may represent an effective option for the treatment of obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” Dr. Knop summarized.
And “the PIONEER PLUS trial showed superior glycemic control and body-weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors, with higher doses of once-daily oral semaglutide (25 mg and 50 mg) compared with the currently [highest] approved 14-mg dose,” said Dr. Aroda.
Session chair Marion Pragnell, PhD, vice president of research & science at ADA, said in an interview there is a need for multiple treatment options, as different patients respond differently to individual drugs. The oral dose of semaglutide has to be higher than that approved for subcutaneous injection (as Ozempic or Wegovy) because of bioavailability, but small-molecule research is advancing such that in future lower doses of oral drugs may have the same effect as the current lower subcutaneous doses of the drug.
The oral version of semaglutide (Rybelsus) was approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg or 14 mg per day in 2019; it has not been approved for use in obesity.
Dr. Knop remarked that, in his clinical practice, about 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes prefer daily oral semaglutide and the rest prefer weekly injected semaglutide.
“Having an oral formulation of semaglutide in addition to the subcutaneous, or injectable, formula available will allow people who struggle to lose weight with diet and physical activity alone to take this effective medication in a way that best suits them,” he added.
Participants in OASIS and PIONEER PLUS were instructed to take the once-daily study drug tablet in the morning, in the fasting state, with up to half a glass of water (120 mL) at least 30 minutes before intake of any other food, beverage, or oral medication.
OASIS: 50-mg daily pill in adults with overweight or obesity
OASIS is, to their knowledge, “the first trial to assess the bodyweight-lowering effect of an oral GLP-1 agonist (semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day) in adults with overweight or obesity, without type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knop and colleagues wrote.
The 50-mg dose induced clinically meaningful reductions in bodyweight, with accompanying improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, consistent with results reported for subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly (Wegovy) in a similar population.
As an adjunct to diet and physical activity, oral semaglutide 50 mg led to a mean bodyweight reduction of 15.1%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group, and greater percentages of participants reaching bodyweight reduction targets of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.
Body-weight reductions were accompanied by significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, compared with placebo.
“These results indicate that oral semaglutide 50 mg could provide an effective, future option for people with overweight or obesity who would benefit from a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” they concluded.
PIONEER PLUS: Inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes
Reporting the PIONEER PLUS data, Dr. Aroda and colleagues said: “For people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs, higher doses (25 mg and 50 mg) of once-daily oral semaglutide provided more effective glycemic control and greater bodyweight loss than 14 mg semaglutide, without additional safety concerns.”
PIONEER PLUS is the first study to indicate that these bigger doses of semaglutide might provide a highly effective oral option to improve both glycemic control and weight loss in type 2 diabetes.
“This trial provides compelling evidence that the availability of a wider range of doses of oral semaglutide will allow for individualized dosing to the desired effect, and the ability to intensify treatment as needed,” said Dr. Aroda. “We are hopeful that these results encourage earlier effective management of type 2 diabetes and allow for broader management in the primary care setting.”
In an accompanying editorial Christina H. Sherrill, PharmD, and Andrew Y. Hwang, PharmD, write: “This expansion in dosing titration might provide clinicians with more opportunities to obtain the maximum efficacy of this oral GLP-1 agonist.”
But additional investigations “to establish whether the superior glycemic reduction seen at these higher doses translates into cardiovascular risk reduction” are needed, said Dr. Sherrill, of High Point (N.C.) University, and Dr. Hwang, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences University, Boston.
Such investigations “would further elucidate the place in therapy of high-dose oral semaglutide,” they concluded.
Dr. Aroda and colleagues agreed: “Future real-world studies will be needed to investigate the clinical impact of the availability of higher doses of oral semaglutide.”
The trials were funded by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of two new phase 3 clinical trials.
The two trials, OASIS in patients with overweight or obesity without diabetes and PIONEER PLUS in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet.
Filip K. Knop, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, presented highlights of the OASIS-1 results, and Vanita R. Aroda, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, presented key findings of PIONEER PLUS, during a press briefing prior to the ADA session.
OASIS-1 showed that “oral semaglutide 50 mg may represent an effective option for the treatment of obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” Dr. Knop summarized.
And “the PIONEER PLUS trial showed superior glycemic control and body-weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors, with higher doses of once-daily oral semaglutide (25 mg and 50 mg) compared with the currently [highest] approved 14-mg dose,” said Dr. Aroda.
Session chair Marion Pragnell, PhD, vice president of research & science at ADA, said in an interview there is a need for multiple treatment options, as different patients respond differently to individual drugs. The oral dose of semaglutide has to be higher than that approved for subcutaneous injection (as Ozempic or Wegovy) because of bioavailability, but small-molecule research is advancing such that in future lower doses of oral drugs may have the same effect as the current lower subcutaneous doses of the drug.
The oral version of semaglutide (Rybelsus) was approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg or 14 mg per day in 2019; it has not been approved for use in obesity.
Dr. Knop remarked that, in his clinical practice, about 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes prefer daily oral semaglutide and the rest prefer weekly injected semaglutide.
“Having an oral formulation of semaglutide in addition to the subcutaneous, or injectable, formula available will allow people who struggle to lose weight with diet and physical activity alone to take this effective medication in a way that best suits them,” he added.
Participants in OASIS and PIONEER PLUS were instructed to take the once-daily study drug tablet in the morning, in the fasting state, with up to half a glass of water (120 mL) at least 30 minutes before intake of any other food, beverage, or oral medication.
OASIS: 50-mg daily pill in adults with overweight or obesity
OASIS is, to their knowledge, “the first trial to assess the bodyweight-lowering effect of an oral GLP-1 agonist (semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day) in adults with overweight or obesity, without type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knop and colleagues wrote.
The 50-mg dose induced clinically meaningful reductions in bodyweight, with accompanying improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, consistent with results reported for subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly (Wegovy) in a similar population.
As an adjunct to diet and physical activity, oral semaglutide 50 mg led to a mean bodyweight reduction of 15.1%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group, and greater percentages of participants reaching bodyweight reduction targets of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.
Body-weight reductions were accompanied by significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, compared with placebo.
“These results indicate that oral semaglutide 50 mg could provide an effective, future option for people with overweight or obesity who would benefit from a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” they concluded.
PIONEER PLUS: Inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes
Reporting the PIONEER PLUS data, Dr. Aroda and colleagues said: “For people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs, higher doses (25 mg and 50 mg) of once-daily oral semaglutide provided more effective glycemic control and greater bodyweight loss than 14 mg semaglutide, without additional safety concerns.”
PIONEER PLUS is the first study to indicate that these bigger doses of semaglutide might provide a highly effective oral option to improve both glycemic control and weight loss in type 2 diabetes.
“This trial provides compelling evidence that the availability of a wider range of doses of oral semaglutide will allow for individualized dosing to the desired effect, and the ability to intensify treatment as needed,” said Dr. Aroda. “We are hopeful that these results encourage earlier effective management of type 2 diabetes and allow for broader management in the primary care setting.”
In an accompanying editorial Christina H. Sherrill, PharmD, and Andrew Y. Hwang, PharmD, write: “This expansion in dosing titration might provide clinicians with more opportunities to obtain the maximum efficacy of this oral GLP-1 agonist.”
But additional investigations “to establish whether the superior glycemic reduction seen at these higher doses translates into cardiovascular risk reduction” are needed, said Dr. Sherrill, of High Point (N.C.) University, and Dr. Hwang, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences University, Boston.
Such investigations “would further elucidate the place in therapy of high-dose oral semaglutide,” they concluded.
Dr. Aroda and colleagues agreed: “Future real-world studies will be needed to investigate the clinical impact of the availability of higher doses of oral semaglutide.”
The trials were funded by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
according to the results of two new phase 3 clinical trials.
The two trials, OASIS in patients with overweight or obesity without diabetes and PIONEER PLUS in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet.
Filip K. Knop, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, presented highlights of the OASIS-1 results, and Vanita R. Aroda, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, presented key findings of PIONEER PLUS, during a press briefing prior to the ADA session.
OASIS-1 showed that “oral semaglutide 50 mg may represent an effective option for the treatment of obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” Dr. Knop summarized.
And “the PIONEER PLUS trial showed superior glycemic control and body-weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors, with higher doses of once-daily oral semaglutide (25 mg and 50 mg) compared with the currently [highest] approved 14-mg dose,” said Dr. Aroda.
Session chair Marion Pragnell, PhD, vice president of research & science at ADA, said in an interview there is a need for multiple treatment options, as different patients respond differently to individual drugs. The oral dose of semaglutide has to be higher than that approved for subcutaneous injection (as Ozempic or Wegovy) because of bioavailability, but small-molecule research is advancing such that in future lower doses of oral drugs may have the same effect as the current lower subcutaneous doses of the drug.
The oral version of semaglutide (Rybelsus) was approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg or 14 mg per day in 2019; it has not been approved for use in obesity.
Dr. Knop remarked that, in his clinical practice, about 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes prefer daily oral semaglutide and the rest prefer weekly injected semaglutide.
“Having an oral formulation of semaglutide in addition to the subcutaneous, or injectable, formula available will allow people who struggle to lose weight with diet and physical activity alone to take this effective medication in a way that best suits them,” he added.
Participants in OASIS and PIONEER PLUS were instructed to take the once-daily study drug tablet in the morning, in the fasting state, with up to half a glass of water (120 mL) at least 30 minutes before intake of any other food, beverage, or oral medication.
OASIS: 50-mg daily pill in adults with overweight or obesity
OASIS is, to their knowledge, “the first trial to assess the bodyweight-lowering effect of an oral GLP-1 agonist (semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day) in adults with overweight or obesity, without type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knop and colleagues wrote.
The 50-mg dose induced clinically meaningful reductions in bodyweight, with accompanying improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, consistent with results reported for subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly (Wegovy) in a similar population.
As an adjunct to diet and physical activity, oral semaglutide 50 mg led to a mean bodyweight reduction of 15.1%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group, and greater percentages of participants reaching bodyweight reduction targets of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.
Body-weight reductions were accompanied by significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, compared with placebo.
“These results indicate that oral semaglutide 50 mg could provide an effective, future option for people with overweight or obesity who would benefit from a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” they concluded.
PIONEER PLUS: Inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes
Reporting the PIONEER PLUS data, Dr. Aroda and colleagues said: “For people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs, higher doses (25 mg and 50 mg) of once-daily oral semaglutide provided more effective glycemic control and greater bodyweight loss than 14 mg semaglutide, without additional safety concerns.”
PIONEER PLUS is the first study to indicate that these bigger doses of semaglutide might provide a highly effective oral option to improve both glycemic control and weight loss in type 2 diabetes.
“This trial provides compelling evidence that the availability of a wider range of doses of oral semaglutide will allow for individualized dosing to the desired effect, and the ability to intensify treatment as needed,” said Dr. Aroda. “We are hopeful that these results encourage earlier effective management of type 2 diabetes and allow for broader management in the primary care setting.”
In an accompanying editorial Christina H. Sherrill, PharmD, and Andrew Y. Hwang, PharmD, write: “This expansion in dosing titration might provide clinicians with more opportunities to obtain the maximum efficacy of this oral GLP-1 agonist.”
But additional investigations “to establish whether the superior glycemic reduction seen at these higher doses translates into cardiovascular risk reduction” are needed, said Dr. Sherrill, of High Point (N.C.) University, and Dr. Hwang, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences University, Boston.
Such investigations “would further elucidate the place in therapy of high-dose oral semaglutide,” they concluded.
Dr. Aroda and colleagues agreed: “Future real-world studies will be needed to investigate the clinical impact of the availability of higher doses of oral semaglutide.”
The trials were funded by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADA 2023
Tackle education and mindset to reduce diabetes distress
, according to two new studies in patients with type 1 diabetes presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Danielle Hessler Jones, PhD, presented findings from Behavioral Approaches to Reducing Diabetes Distress and Improving Glycemic Control (EMBARK) in adults with type 1 diabetes during an oral session.
The three-arm randomized trial found that patients had the greatest improvements in feelings of powerlessness after a 3-month behavioral intervention that combined type 1 diabetes education plus specific attention to diabetes distress.
And in a late-breaking poster, “Do The Right Thing: Behavioral Intervention for At-Risk T1D Youth,” David V. Wagner, PhD, showed that a behavioral intervention not only improved glycemic management but also reduced cost of care in disadvantaged youth.
“Diabetes distress is the emotional response to living with diabetes, the burden of relentless daily self-management, and the prospect of its long-term complications,” said Dr. Hessler Jones, professor and vice chair for research in the department of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
It is common, experienced by 20%-58% of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and is different from depression, as it is associated with glycemic control and disease management. It “is also chronic and does not disappear on its own without intervention,” she stressed.
“It is the expected worries, concerns, and fears that are associated with struggling with a demanding and progressive chronic disease and its management,” she added.
The findings from EMBARK “suggest that distress reductions are greatest when interventions integrate education alongside approaches to address the emotional side of diabetes,” she said.
The group is also analyzing changes in A1c with the three different interventions in EMBARK, with results expected this fall.
Dr. Hessler Jones said they also just received funding for DDASSIST, which will answer the question: “How do I translate this into care in my clinic?” The aim of the clinic training program is to bring the intervention to the diabetes care team.
“Could this program be delivered by somebody else, other than a psychologist?” an audience member asked. They will be looking at this, she replied.
‘Do the right thing’
For the late-breaking poster by Dr. Wagner and colleagues, researchers evaluated direct cost data from three health care systems provided for youth with type 1 diabetes who received an intensive behavioral health intervention, Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH).
Youths were included in the analyses if they had type 1 diabetes and at least 1 year of cost data prior to and following NICH enrollment. Outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient costs were combined. The analysis included 53 youth with the following characteristics: mean age, 14.2 years; 87% Medicaid; 58% female; 32% Black, 29% Non-Hispanic White, 28% Hispanic/Latinx, 7% Pacific Islander, 2% Asian, and 2% other racial and ethnic groups.
Average yearly costs significantly decreased from $20,400 per youth prior to NICH to $9,500 per youth afterward, largely due to inpatient charges.
“These results highlight the benefits of providing access to intensive interventions to pediatric populations experiencing health disparities,” said Dr. Wagner. “Investing early in the lives of youth experiencing health disparities is not only the right thing to do to improve patients’ health but it could also have a positive economic impact down the road.”
Three interventions in 300 adults with type 1 diabetes
Meanwhile, EMBARK recruited 300 patients with type 1 diabetes in the United States from clinics and community organizations who were aged 21 and older and had an elevated type 1 diabetes distress score (> 2.0) and A1c greater than or equal to 7.5%.
Participants were a mean age of 46 years, 79% were female, and 89% were White. They had a type 1 diabetes distress score of 2.8, a mean A1c of 8.3%, and 71% used an insulin pump and 79% used a continuous glucose monitor.
Participants were randomized to one of three interventions:
- Streamline: A traditional diabetes educator-led education and management program.
- Tuned-in: A psychologist-led program focused exclusively on reducing diabetes distress.
- Fixit: An integration of the two programs.
Interventions were given virtually over 3 months to small groups of 8-12 individuals and included initial workshops, one-to-one phone calls, and follow-up group meetings. Participants were then followed for 8 months.
Researchers found statistically significant and substantial reductions in overall diabetes distress in all three interventions, with the greatest reductions in the combined intervention group, which were greater than in the educational approach alone group (P = .005).
The percentage of participants who no longer reported elevated diabetes distress at follow-up was 25% in Streamline, 37% in Tuned-in, and 42% in Fixit.
The percentage of participants who reported a minimal clinically important difference – the smallest change in a treatment outcome that an individual would identify as important – was also greatest in those in the Fixit intervention group (82%) than in the Tuned-in (74%) or Streamline (65%) interventions.
‘Adding the psychologist is where the real magic happens’
“The certified diabetes care specialist intervention is really a very standard thing that most clinicians would have access to; they tend to focus on knowledge and problem solving and some of the psychosocial issues,” Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the ADA, said in an interview.
The EMBARK trial found a “graded response: CDCS alone, psychologist really focused on diabetes distress, and the two together, which would be the ideal practice model,” he noted.
There are these validated ways of measuring diabetes distress using a diabetes distress survey tool, which is also underutilized.
“Adding the psychologist is really where the real magic happens in terms of diabetes distress,” Dr. Gabbay said.
“As you can imagine, [if] somebody ... feels powerless, it is going to be tough to manage their diabetes and unlikely to be terribly successful,” he observed. Often, these individuals are just not doing well. This study highlighted the importance of identifying this.
“I’m encouraged by the findings from the studies presented during this year’s Scientific Sessions as we continue to seek out innovative, evidence-based solutions that support people living with diabetes when they need it the most,” Dr. Gabbay concluded.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to two new studies in patients with type 1 diabetes presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Danielle Hessler Jones, PhD, presented findings from Behavioral Approaches to Reducing Diabetes Distress and Improving Glycemic Control (EMBARK) in adults with type 1 diabetes during an oral session.
The three-arm randomized trial found that patients had the greatest improvements in feelings of powerlessness after a 3-month behavioral intervention that combined type 1 diabetes education plus specific attention to diabetes distress.
And in a late-breaking poster, “Do The Right Thing: Behavioral Intervention for At-Risk T1D Youth,” David V. Wagner, PhD, showed that a behavioral intervention not only improved glycemic management but also reduced cost of care in disadvantaged youth.
“Diabetes distress is the emotional response to living with diabetes, the burden of relentless daily self-management, and the prospect of its long-term complications,” said Dr. Hessler Jones, professor and vice chair for research in the department of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
It is common, experienced by 20%-58% of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and is different from depression, as it is associated with glycemic control and disease management. It “is also chronic and does not disappear on its own without intervention,” she stressed.
“It is the expected worries, concerns, and fears that are associated with struggling with a demanding and progressive chronic disease and its management,” she added.
The findings from EMBARK “suggest that distress reductions are greatest when interventions integrate education alongside approaches to address the emotional side of diabetes,” she said.
The group is also analyzing changes in A1c with the three different interventions in EMBARK, with results expected this fall.
Dr. Hessler Jones said they also just received funding for DDASSIST, which will answer the question: “How do I translate this into care in my clinic?” The aim of the clinic training program is to bring the intervention to the diabetes care team.
“Could this program be delivered by somebody else, other than a psychologist?” an audience member asked. They will be looking at this, she replied.
‘Do the right thing’
For the late-breaking poster by Dr. Wagner and colleagues, researchers evaluated direct cost data from three health care systems provided for youth with type 1 diabetes who received an intensive behavioral health intervention, Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH).
Youths were included in the analyses if they had type 1 diabetes and at least 1 year of cost data prior to and following NICH enrollment. Outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient costs were combined. The analysis included 53 youth with the following characteristics: mean age, 14.2 years; 87% Medicaid; 58% female; 32% Black, 29% Non-Hispanic White, 28% Hispanic/Latinx, 7% Pacific Islander, 2% Asian, and 2% other racial and ethnic groups.
Average yearly costs significantly decreased from $20,400 per youth prior to NICH to $9,500 per youth afterward, largely due to inpatient charges.
“These results highlight the benefits of providing access to intensive interventions to pediatric populations experiencing health disparities,” said Dr. Wagner. “Investing early in the lives of youth experiencing health disparities is not only the right thing to do to improve patients’ health but it could also have a positive economic impact down the road.”
Three interventions in 300 adults with type 1 diabetes
Meanwhile, EMBARK recruited 300 patients with type 1 diabetes in the United States from clinics and community organizations who were aged 21 and older and had an elevated type 1 diabetes distress score (> 2.0) and A1c greater than or equal to 7.5%.
Participants were a mean age of 46 years, 79% were female, and 89% were White. They had a type 1 diabetes distress score of 2.8, a mean A1c of 8.3%, and 71% used an insulin pump and 79% used a continuous glucose monitor.
Participants were randomized to one of three interventions:
- Streamline: A traditional diabetes educator-led education and management program.
- Tuned-in: A psychologist-led program focused exclusively on reducing diabetes distress.
- Fixit: An integration of the two programs.
Interventions were given virtually over 3 months to small groups of 8-12 individuals and included initial workshops, one-to-one phone calls, and follow-up group meetings. Participants were then followed for 8 months.
Researchers found statistically significant and substantial reductions in overall diabetes distress in all three interventions, with the greatest reductions in the combined intervention group, which were greater than in the educational approach alone group (P = .005).
The percentage of participants who no longer reported elevated diabetes distress at follow-up was 25% in Streamline, 37% in Tuned-in, and 42% in Fixit.
The percentage of participants who reported a minimal clinically important difference – the smallest change in a treatment outcome that an individual would identify as important – was also greatest in those in the Fixit intervention group (82%) than in the Tuned-in (74%) or Streamline (65%) interventions.
‘Adding the psychologist is where the real magic happens’
“The certified diabetes care specialist intervention is really a very standard thing that most clinicians would have access to; they tend to focus on knowledge and problem solving and some of the psychosocial issues,” Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the ADA, said in an interview.
The EMBARK trial found a “graded response: CDCS alone, psychologist really focused on diabetes distress, and the two together, which would be the ideal practice model,” he noted.
There are these validated ways of measuring diabetes distress using a diabetes distress survey tool, which is also underutilized.
“Adding the psychologist is really where the real magic happens in terms of diabetes distress,” Dr. Gabbay said.
“As you can imagine, [if] somebody ... feels powerless, it is going to be tough to manage their diabetes and unlikely to be terribly successful,” he observed. Often, these individuals are just not doing well. This study highlighted the importance of identifying this.
“I’m encouraged by the findings from the studies presented during this year’s Scientific Sessions as we continue to seek out innovative, evidence-based solutions that support people living with diabetes when they need it the most,” Dr. Gabbay concluded.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to two new studies in patients with type 1 diabetes presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Danielle Hessler Jones, PhD, presented findings from Behavioral Approaches to Reducing Diabetes Distress and Improving Glycemic Control (EMBARK) in adults with type 1 diabetes during an oral session.
The three-arm randomized trial found that patients had the greatest improvements in feelings of powerlessness after a 3-month behavioral intervention that combined type 1 diabetes education plus specific attention to diabetes distress.
And in a late-breaking poster, “Do The Right Thing: Behavioral Intervention for At-Risk T1D Youth,” David V. Wagner, PhD, showed that a behavioral intervention not only improved glycemic management but also reduced cost of care in disadvantaged youth.
“Diabetes distress is the emotional response to living with diabetes, the burden of relentless daily self-management, and the prospect of its long-term complications,” said Dr. Hessler Jones, professor and vice chair for research in the department of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.
It is common, experienced by 20%-58% of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and is different from depression, as it is associated with glycemic control and disease management. It “is also chronic and does not disappear on its own without intervention,” she stressed.
“It is the expected worries, concerns, and fears that are associated with struggling with a demanding and progressive chronic disease and its management,” she added.
The findings from EMBARK “suggest that distress reductions are greatest when interventions integrate education alongside approaches to address the emotional side of diabetes,” she said.
The group is also analyzing changes in A1c with the three different interventions in EMBARK, with results expected this fall.
Dr. Hessler Jones said they also just received funding for DDASSIST, which will answer the question: “How do I translate this into care in my clinic?” The aim of the clinic training program is to bring the intervention to the diabetes care team.
“Could this program be delivered by somebody else, other than a psychologist?” an audience member asked. They will be looking at this, she replied.
‘Do the right thing’
For the late-breaking poster by Dr. Wagner and colleagues, researchers evaluated direct cost data from three health care systems provided for youth with type 1 diabetes who received an intensive behavioral health intervention, Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH).
Youths were included in the analyses if they had type 1 diabetes and at least 1 year of cost data prior to and following NICH enrollment. Outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient costs were combined. The analysis included 53 youth with the following characteristics: mean age, 14.2 years; 87% Medicaid; 58% female; 32% Black, 29% Non-Hispanic White, 28% Hispanic/Latinx, 7% Pacific Islander, 2% Asian, and 2% other racial and ethnic groups.
Average yearly costs significantly decreased from $20,400 per youth prior to NICH to $9,500 per youth afterward, largely due to inpatient charges.
“These results highlight the benefits of providing access to intensive interventions to pediatric populations experiencing health disparities,” said Dr. Wagner. “Investing early in the lives of youth experiencing health disparities is not only the right thing to do to improve patients’ health but it could also have a positive economic impact down the road.”
Three interventions in 300 adults with type 1 diabetes
Meanwhile, EMBARK recruited 300 patients with type 1 diabetes in the United States from clinics and community organizations who were aged 21 and older and had an elevated type 1 diabetes distress score (> 2.0) and A1c greater than or equal to 7.5%.
Participants were a mean age of 46 years, 79% were female, and 89% were White. They had a type 1 diabetes distress score of 2.8, a mean A1c of 8.3%, and 71% used an insulin pump and 79% used a continuous glucose monitor.
Participants were randomized to one of three interventions:
- Streamline: A traditional diabetes educator-led education and management program.
- Tuned-in: A psychologist-led program focused exclusively on reducing diabetes distress.
- Fixit: An integration of the two programs.
Interventions were given virtually over 3 months to small groups of 8-12 individuals and included initial workshops, one-to-one phone calls, and follow-up group meetings. Participants were then followed for 8 months.
Researchers found statistically significant and substantial reductions in overall diabetes distress in all three interventions, with the greatest reductions in the combined intervention group, which were greater than in the educational approach alone group (P = .005).
The percentage of participants who no longer reported elevated diabetes distress at follow-up was 25% in Streamline, 37% in Tuned-in, and 42% in Fixit.
The percentage of participants who reported a minimal clinically important difference – the smallest change in a treatment outcome that an individual would identify as important – was also greatest in those in the Fixit intervention group (82%) than in the Tuned-in (74%) or Streamline (65%) interventions.
‘Adding the psychologist is where the real magic happens’
“The certified diabetes care specialist intervention is really a very standard thing that most clinicians would have access to; they tend to focus on knowledge and problem solving and some of the psychosocial issues,” Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer for the ADA, said in an interview.
The EMBARK trial found a “graded response: CDCS alone, psychologist really focused on diabetes distress, and the two together, which would be the ideal practice model,” he noted.
There are these validated ways of measuring diabetes distress using a diabetes distress survey tool, which is also underutilized.
“Adding the psychologist is really where the real magic happens in terms of diabetes distress,” Dr. Gabbay said.
“As you can imagine, [if] somebody ... feels powerless, it is going to be tough to manage their diabetes and unlikely to be terribly successful,” he observed. Often, these individuals are just not doing well. This study highlighted the importance of identifying this.
“I’m encouraged by the findings from the studies presented during this year’s Scientific Sessions as we continue to seek out innovative, evidence-based solutions that support people living with diabetes when they need it the most,” Dr. Gabbay concluded.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADA 2023
‘Striking’ benefit of lipid lowering in primary prevention
SAN DIEGO – two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.
The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.
This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.
Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.
“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview.
“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.
But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated.
“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed.
Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.”
“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
‘Wake-up call’
He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”
Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.
“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”
Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.
He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years.
“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.
“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.
CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.
Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.
Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”
And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.
Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
Greater benefit in primary prevention?
In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.
Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.
The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.
Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.
Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.
“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.
He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.
He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.
“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.
Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.
“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”
He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
Editorial cautious
In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.
Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.
Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.
“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.
The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.
This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.
Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.
“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview.
“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.
But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated.
“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed.
Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.”
“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
‘Wake-up call’
He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”
Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.
“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”
Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.
He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years.
“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.
“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.
CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.
Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.
Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”
And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.
Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
Greater benefit in primary prevention?
In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.
Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.
The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.
Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.
Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.
“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.
He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.
He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.
“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.
Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.
“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”
He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
Editorial cautious
In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.
Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.
Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.
“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.
The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.
This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.
Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.
“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview.
“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.
But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated.
“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed.
Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.”
“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
‘Wake-up call’
He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”
Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.
“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”
Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.
He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years.
“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.
“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.
CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.
Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.
Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”
And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.
Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
Greater benefit in primary prevention?
In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.
Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.
The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.
Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.
Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.
“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.
He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.
He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.
“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.
Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.
“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”
He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
Editorial cautious
In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.
Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.
Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.
“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
SURMOUNT-2: Tirzepatide rings up major weight loss in type 2 diabetes
SAN DIEGO – in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.
Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.
“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’
Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial.
Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)
“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.
This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’
Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.
Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.
“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive.
Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’
Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.
“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”
“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.
SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%
The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.
The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.
A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.
The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia
The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.
Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.
The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.
The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.
Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.
“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’
Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial.
Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)
“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.
This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’
Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.
Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.
“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive.
Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’
Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.
“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”
“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.
SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%
The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.
The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.
A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.
The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia
The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.
Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.
The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.
The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.
Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.
Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.
“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’
Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial.
Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)
“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.
This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’
Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.
Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.
“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.
But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive.
Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’
Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.
“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”
“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.
SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%
The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.
The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.
A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.
The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia
The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.
Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.
The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.
The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.
Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2023
Low copays drive better adherence to new diabetes drugs
TOPLINE:
The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.
METHODOLOGY:
- Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
- Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
- Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
- Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAYS:
- U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
- These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
- After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.
IN PRACTICE:
“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.
LIMITATIONS:
Study could not exclude residual confounding.
Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.
Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.
Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.
Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.
METHODOLOGY:
- Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
- Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
- Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
- Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAYS:
- U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
- These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
- After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.
IN PRACTICE:
“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.
LIMITATIONS:
Study could not exclude residual confounding.
Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.
Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.
Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.
Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high copays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more adherent they are.
METHODOLOGY:
- Review of 90,041 U.S. adults who started a GLP-1 agonist (n = 39,149) or SGLT2 inhibitor (n = 50,892) in 2014-2020.
- Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.
- Data are from Clinformatics Data Mart, including both commercial and Medicare health insurance plans.
- Primary outcome: 12-month adherence to prescribed GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAYS:
- U.S. adults with a lower drug copay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher copay.
- These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.
- After full adjustment, patients with a high copay (≥ $50/month) were, after 12 months, 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a low copay (< $10/month) for these agents.
IN PRACTICE:
“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” say the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from the University of Pittsburgh, and included several authors from other U.S. centers.
LIMITATIONS:
Study could not exclude residual confounding.
Generalizability uncertain for those without health insurance or with public insurance.
Study did not have information on patient preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence.
Possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities.
Study could not assess how copayments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, nor other factors including possible price inflation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an advisor to several drug companies, including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is education or screening better for type 1 diabetes?
After 100 years of insulin therapy, teplizumab, an immunotherapy for early-stage type 1 diabetes, has been approved for the first time in the United States and has been shown to delay the manifestation of clinical diabetes by 3 years on average. at the Diabetes Congress in Berlin.
Anette-Gabriele Ziegler, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Diabetes Research in Helmholtz Munich, argued that voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes should be included in standard care. “The first immunotherapy that delays type 1 diabetes has been approved in the U.S. for early stage 2. And this early stage can only be identified through prior screening, since no symptoms have manifested by this stage,” she said. This is the only way in which as many people as possible, particularly children, will benefit from the disease-delaying therapy, she added.
Two autoantibodies
One biomarker for the early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is evidence of at least two positive islet cell antibodies. In one study of more than 13,000 children who were observed for 20 years, the specificity of these antibodies was 100%. “Every single child with a positive autoantibody test developed type 1 diabetes later on in their life,” Dr. Ziegler said. “Based on the results of this study, the early stages of type 1 diabetes were added to multiple guidelines.”
The early stage of type 1 diabetes is divided into the following three phases, depending on autoantibody detection and the level of glucose metabolism:
- Early stage 1: Two or more islet autoantibodies and normoglycemia.
- Early stage 2: Two or more islet autoantibodies and dysglycemia.
- Early stage 3: Symptoms, hyperglycemia, insulin therapy.
The aim of the ongoing FR1DA study is to ascertain whether the general population could also be screened for type 1 diabetes using this autoantibody. “Since 2015, children of kindergarten and school age have undergone screening, and to date, more than 170,000 have been tested,” said Dr. Ziegler. “At least two autoantibodies were detected in 0.3% of those screened.”
Education and care
The families of the children in whom early-stage type 1 diabetes was diagnosed were invited to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), to undergo measurement of hemoglobin A1c, and to take part in training and monitoring. “Education and competent, ongoing care are crucial for the efficacy of the screening,” Dr. Ziegler emphasized.
The OGTT revealed that 85% of the FR1DA children were still in early stage 1, another 11% were in early stage 2, and the remaining 4% were in early stage 3.
“Unfortunately, the 4% could no longer benefit from teplizumab, since the medication is not approved for manifest diabetes,” said Dr. Ziegler. “However, the 11% could receive teplizumab immediately, and then later on, the 85%, when they developed stage 2. Therefore, further observation of the children is also important.”
The speed at which the disease progresses from early stage 1 to early stage 2 can be stratified using IA2 antibodies, the 90-minute OGTT glucose value, and the HbA1c value. With regard to progression to clinical type 1 diabetes (stage 3), it was observed that the progression risk for the FR1DA children was similar to that of international birth cohorts with increased genetic risk. “Of course, there is still no 20-year follow-up like for BABYDIAB, DIPP, and DAISY, but as of yet, the progression rate is practically identical,” said Dr. Ziegler.
Dubious benefits?
The advantages of screening for type 1 diabetes would not be limited to potential access to preventive therapies and a smooth transition to insulin therapy at the correct point in time, according to Dr. Ziegler. Participation in the FR1DA study dramatically reduced the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Between 2015 and 2023, the overall rate of ketoacidosis associated with the manifestation of clinical type 1 diabetes was 4.3%. In contrast, the general DKA rate in Germany has remained largely unchanged for the last 2 decades at between 20% and 25%.
In addition, the FR1DA children exhibited better beta cell function and better metabolic function at clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. This finding was observed in a comparison with children with a spontaneous diabetes diagnosis from the DiMelli study. “It is important that there is a lot of data that shows how, in the long term, this is associated with a better morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Ziegler.
Despite the impressive data from the FR1DA study, not all diabetes experts are convinced that a general screening for type 1 diabetes would be beneficial. Beate Karges, MD, PhD, of the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the Bethlehem Hospital Stolberg (Germany) and the endocrinology and diabetology department at the University Hospital Aachen (Germany), stressed, “Screening makes sense if the disease is curable in the preclinical phase or if there is a significantly better prognosis in the event of early diagnosis and treatment.”
Severe side effects
Even with an early-stage diagnosis, curing type 1 diabetes is impossible. The new anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab merely delays the manifestation of symptoms for 3 years. However, this delay has its price. The summary of product characteristics for teplizumab contains warnings of severe lymphopenia lasting many weeks, cytokine release syndrome, severe infections, and hypersensitivity reactions. Furthermore, vaccinations may not be administered during teplizumab treatment and therefore must be completed in advance.
“Preventing type 1 diabetes is still not possible, we can only delay it, and the long-term efficacy and safety of this immunotherapy are not clear,” said Dr. Karges. She added that a significant reduction in the DKA rate – as observed in the FR1DA study – may be possible even without screening. This possibility was demonstrated by a model project in Stuttgart, Germany, in which the DKA rate was significantly reduced through education alone.
Education reduces ketoacidosis
“The families were given information about the early signs of type 1 diabetes during the education investigation. Through this [education], a reduction in the ketoacidosis rate from 28% to 16% was achieved,” said Dr. Karges. It is also known from studies of familial type 1 diabetes that secondary sufferers in the family only exhibit a DKA rate of 7%. “Through education within the family and awareness campaigns, the DKA rate can be reduced by 40%-65%,” said Dr. Karges.
Dr. Karges also doubts whether starting insulin therapy earlier “at the correct point in time” elicits long-term advantages. Secondary sufferers with familial type 1 diabetes have better HbA1c values in the first few years after diagnosis. “But as they progress beyond 2, towards 10 years, the difference in HbA1c values diminishes,” said Dr. Karges.
Whether the patient has DKA at type 1 diabetes diagnosis also seems to make little difference in the long term. “There is also no difference in the HbA1c value in the 2-10 years after diagnosis,” said Dr. Karges. “Glycemic control is not permanently improved in the event that treatment is started early,” she concluded.
“Type 1 diabetes can be delayed with an immune intervention, but to do so, we must also accept possible severe side effects in an otherwise healthy child,” she said. On the other hand, type 1 diabetes can be treated well. “With pumps and continuous glucose monitoring, insulin therapy in children and adolescents has become significantly safer and more effective,” she said.
New therapeutic options
Whether voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes eventually finds its way into standard care depends on the further development of preventive medications. Dr. Ziegler stressed that future preventive therapy does not need to be limited to the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab.
For example, strategies such as high-dose oral insulin therapy are being investigated. Verapamil, which is used to treat hypertension, is also promising, since with it, beta cells were retained in early stage 3, and it improved their function. The fusion protein abatacept fell short of statistical significance in a recently published study. For Dr. Ziegler, one thing remains true. “The therapy of type 1 diabetes is about to undergo a renaissance.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
After 100 years of insulin therapy, teplizumab, an immunotherapy for early-stage type 1 diabetes, has been approved for the first time in the United States and has been shown to delay the manifestation of clinical diabetes by 3 years on average. at the Diabetes Congress in Berlin.
Anette-Gabriele Ziegler, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Diabetes Research in Helmholtz Munich, argued that voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes should be included in standard care. “The first immunotherapy that delays type 1 diabetes has been approved in the U.S. for early stage 2. And this early stage can only be identified through prior screening, since no symptoms have manifested by this stage,” she said. This is the only way in which as many people as possible, particularly children, will benefit from the disease-delaying therapy, she added.
Two autoantibodies
One biomarker for the early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is evidence of at least two positive islet cell antibodies. In one study of more than 13,000 children who were observed for 20 years, the specificity of these antibodies was 100%. “Every single child with a positive autoantibody test developed type 1 diabetes later on in their life,” Dr. Ziegler said. “Based on the results of this study, the early stages of type 1 diabetes were added to multiple guidelines.”
The early stage of type 1 diabetes is divided into the following three phases, depending on autoantibody detection and the level of glucose metabolism:
- Early stage 1: Two or more islet autoantibodies and normoglycemia.
- Early stage 2: Two or more islet autoantibodies and dysglycemia.
- Early stage 3: Symptoms, hyperglycemia, insulin therapy.
The aim of the ongoing FR1DA study is to ascertain whether the general population could also be screened for type 1 diabetes using this autoantibody. “Since 2015, children of kindergarten and school age have undergone screening, and to date, more than 170,000 have been tested,” said Dr. Ziegler. “At least two autoantibodies were detected in 0.3% of those screened.”
Education and care
The families of the children in whom early-stage type 1 diabetes was diagnosed were invited to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), to undergo measurement of hemoglobin A1c, and to take part in training and monitoring. “Education and competent, ongoing care are crucial for the efficacy of the screening,” Dr. Ziegler emphasized.
The OGTT revealed that 85% of the FR1DA children were still in early stage 1, another 11% were in early stage 2, and the remaining 4% were in early stage 3.
“Unfortunately, the 4% could no longer benefit from teplizumab, since the medication is not approved for manifest diabetes,” said Dr. Ziegler. “However, the 11% could receive teplizumab immediately, and then later on, the 85%, when they developed stage 2. Therefore, further observation of the children is also important.”
The speed at which the disease progresses from early stage 1 to early stage 2 can be stratified using IA2 antibodies, the 90-minute OGTT glucose value, and the HbA1c value. With regard to progression to clinical type 1 diabetes (stage 3), it was observed that the progression risk for the FR1DA children was similar to that of international birth cohorts with increased genetic risk. “Of course, there is still no 20-year follow-up like for BABYDIAB, DIPP, and DAISY, but as of yet, the progression rate is practically identical,” said Dr. Ziegler.
Dubious benefits?
The advantages of screening for type 1 diabetes would not be limited to potential access to preventive therapies and a smooth transition to insulin therapy at the correct point in time, according to Dr. Ziegler. Participation in the FR1DA study dramatically reduced the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Between 2015 and 2023, the overall rate of ketoacidosis associated with the manifestation of clinical type 1 diabetes was 4.3%. In contrast, the general DKA rate in Germany has remained largely unchanged for the last 2 decades at between 20% and 25%.
In addition, the FR1DA children exhibited better beta cell function and better metabolic function at clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. This finding was observed in a comparison with children with a spontaneous diabetes diagnosis from the DiMelli study. “It is important that there is a lot of data that shows how, in the long term, this is associated with a better morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Ziegler.
Despite the impressive data from the FR1DA study, not all diabetes experts are convinced that a general screening for type 1 diabetes would be beneficial. Beate Karges, MD, PhD, of the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the Bethlehem Hospital Stolberg (Germany) and the endocrinology and diabetology department at the University Hospital Aachen (Germany), stressed, “Screening makes sense if the disease is curable in the preclinical phase or if there is a significantly better prognosis in the event of early diagnosis and treatment.”
Severe side effects
Even with an early-stage diagnosis, curing type 1 diabetes is impossible. The new anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab merely delays the manifestation of symptoms for 3 years. However, this delay has its price. The summary of product characteristics for teplizumab contains warnings of severe lymphopenia lasting many weeks, cytokine release syndrome, severe infections, and hypersensitivity reactions. Furthermore, vaccinations may not be administered during teplizumab treatment and therefore must be completed in advance.
“Preventing type 1 diabetes is still not possible, we can only delay it, and the long-term efficacy and safety of this immunotherapy are not clear,” said Dr. Karges. She added that a significant reduction in the DKA rate – as observed in the FR1DA study – may be possible even without screening. This possibility was demonstrated by a model project in Stuttgart, Germany, in which the DKA rate was significantly reduced through education alone.
Education reduces ketoacidosis
“The families were given information about the early signs of type 1 diabetes during the education investigation. Through this [education], a reduction in the ketoacidosis rate from 28% to 16% was achieved,” said Dr. Karges. It is also known from studies of familial type 1 diabetes that secondary sufferers in the family only exhibit a DKA rate of 7%. “Through education within the family and awareness campaigns, the DKA rate can be reduced by 40%-65%,” said Dr. Karges.
Dr. Karges also doubts whether starting insulin therapy earlier “at the correct point in time” elicits long-term advantages. Secondary sufferers with familial type 1 diabetes have better HbA1c values in the first few years after diagnosis. “But as they progress beyond 2, towards 10 years, the difference in HbA1c values diminishes,” said Dr. Karges.
Whether the patient has DKA at type 1 diabetes diagnosis also seems to make little difference in the long term. “There is also no difference in the HbA1c value in the 2-10 years after diagnosis,” said Dr. Karges. “Glycemic control is not permanently improved in the event that treatment is started early,” she concluded.
“Type 1 diabetes can be delayed with an immune intervention, but to do so, we must also accept possible severe side effects in an otherwise healthy child,” she said. On the other hand, type 1 diabetes can be treated well. “With pumps and continuous glucose monitoring, insulin therapy in children and adolescents has become significantly safer and more effective,” she said.
New therapeutic options
Whether voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes eventually finds its way into standard care depends on the further development of preventive medications. Dr. Ziegler stressed that future preventive therapy does not need to be limited to the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab.
For example, strategies such as high-dose oral insulin therapy are being investigated. Verapamil, which is used to treat hypertension, is also promising, since with it, beta cells were retained in early stage 3, and it improved their function. The fusion protein abatacept fell short of statistical significance in a recently published study. For Dr. Ziegler, one thing remains true. “The therapy of type 1 diabetes is about to undergo a renaissance.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
After 100 years of insulin therapy, teplizumab, an immunotherapy for early-stage type 1 diabetes, has been approved for the first time in the United States and has been shown to delay the manifestation of clinical diabetes by 3 years on average. at the Diabetes Congress in Berlin.
Anette-Gabriele Ziegler, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Diabetes Research in Helmholtz Munich, argued that voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes should be included in standard care. “The first immunotherapy that delays type 1 diabetes has been approved in the U.S. for early stage 2. And this early stage can only be identified through prior screening, since no symptoms have manifested by this stage,” she said. This is the only way in which as many people as possible, particularly children, will benefit from the disease-delaying therapy, she added.
Two autoantibodies
One biomarker for the early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes is evidence of at least two positive islet cell antibodies. In one study of more than 13,000 children who were observed for 20 years, the specificity of these antibodies was 100%. “Every single child with a positive autoantibody test developed type 1 diabetes later on in their life,” Dr. Ziegler said. “Based on the results of this study, the early stages of type 1 diabetes were added to multiple guidelines.”
The early stage of type 1 diabetes is divided into the following three phases, depending on autoantibody detection and the level of glucose metabolism:
- Early stage 1: Two or more islet autoantibodies and normoglycemia.
- Early stage 2: Two or more islet autoantibodies and dysglycemia.
- Early stage 3: Symptoms, hyperglycemia, insulin therapy.
The aim of the ongoing FR1DA study is to ascertain whether the general population could also be screened for type 1 diabetes using this autoantibody. “Since 2015, children of kindergarten and school age have undergone screening, and to date, more than 170,000 have been tested,” said Dr. Ziegler. “At least two autoantibodies were detected in 0.3% of those screened.”
Education and care
The families of the children in whom early-stage type 1 diabetes was diagnosed were invited to take an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), to undergo measurement of hemoglobin A1c, and to take part in training and monitoring. “Education and competent, ongoing care are crucial for the efficacy of the screening,” Dr. Ziegler emphasized.
The OGTT revealed that 85% of the FR1DA children were still in early stage 1, another 11% were in early stage 2, and the remaining 4% were in early stage 3.
“Unfortunately, the 4% could no longer benefit from teplizumab, since the medication is not approved for manifest diabetes,” said Dr. Ziegler. “However, the 11% could receive teplizumab immediately, and then later on, the 85%, when they developed stage 2. Therefore, further observation of the children is also important.”
The speed at which the disease progresses from early stage 1 to early stage 2 can be stratified using IA2 antibodies, the 90-minute OGTT glucose value, and the HbA1c value. With regard to progression to clinical type 1 diabetes (stage 3), it was observed that the progression risk for the FR1DA children was similar to that of international birth cohorts with increased genetic risk. “Of course, there is still no 20-year follow-up like for BABYDIAB, DIPP, and DAISY, but as of yet, the progression rate is practically identical,” said Dr. Ziegler.
Dubious benefits?
The advantages of screening for type 1 diabetes would not be limited to potential access to preventive therapies and a smooth transition to insulin therapy at the correct point in time, according to Dr. Ziegler. Participation in the FR1DA study dramatically reduced the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Between 2015 and 2023, the overall rate of ketoacidosis associated with the manifestation of clinical type 1 diabetes was 4.3%. In contrast, the general DKA rate in Germany has remained largely unchanged for the last 2 decades at between 20% and 25%.
In addition, the FR1DA children exhibited better beta cell function and better metabolic function at clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes. This finding was observed in a comparison with children with a spontaneous diabetes diagnosis from the DiMelli study. “It is important that there is a lot of data that shows how, in the long term, this is associated with a better morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Ziegler.
Despite the impressive data from the FR1DA study, not all diabetes experts are convinced that a general screening for type 1 diabetes would be beneficial. Beate Karges, MD, PhD, of the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the Bethlehem Hospital Stolberg (Germany) and the endocrinology and diabetology department at the University Hospital Aachen (Germany), stressed, “Screening makes sense if the disease is curable in the preclinical phase or if there is a significantly better prognosis in the event of early diagnosis and treatment.”
Severe side effects
Even with an early-stage diagnosis, curing type 1 diabetes is impossible. The new anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab merely delays the manifestation of symptoms for 3 years. However, this delay has its price. The summary of product characteristics for teplizumab contains warnings of severe lymphopenia lasting many weeks, cytokine release syndrome, severe infections, and hypersensitivity reactions. Furthermore, vaccinations may not be administered during teplizumab treatment and therefore must be completed in advance.
“Preventing type 1 diabetes is still not possible, we can only delay it, and the long-term efficacy and safety of this immunotherapy are not clear,” said Dr. Karges. She added that a significant reduction in the DKA rate – as observed in the FR1DA study – may be possible even without screening. This possibility was demonstrated by a model project in Stuttgart, Germany, in which the DKA rate was significantly reduced through education alone.
Education reduces ketoacidosis
“The families were given information about the early signs of type 1 diabetes during the education investigation. Through this [education], a reduction in the ketoacidosis rate from 28% to 16% was achieved,” said Dr. Karges. It is also known from studies of familial type 1 diabetes that secondary sufferers in the family only exhibit a DKA rate of 7%. “Through education within the family and awareness campaigns, the DKA rate can be reduced by 40%-65%,” said Dr. Karges.
Dr. Karges also doubts whether starting insulin therapy earlier “at the correct point in time” elicits long-term advantages. Secondary sufferers with familial type 1 diabetes have better HbA1c values in the first few years after diagnosis. “But as they progress beyond 2, towards 10 years, the difference in HbA1c values diminishes,” said Dr. Karges.
Whether the patient has DKA at type 1 diabetes diagnosis also seems to make little difference in the long term. “There is also no difference in the HbA1c value in the 2-10 years after diagnosis,” said Dr. Karges. “Glycemic control is not permanently improved in the event that treatment is started early,” she concluded.
“Type 1 diabetes can be delayed with an immune intervention, but to do so, we must also accept possible severe side effects in an otherwise healthy child,” she said. On the other hand, type 1 diabetes can be treated well. “With pumps and continuous glucose monitoring, insulin therapy in children and adolescents has become significantly safer and more effective,” she said.
New therapeutic options
Whether voluntary screening for type 1 diabetes eventually finds its way into standard care depends on the further development of preventive medications. Dr. Ziegler stressed that future preventive therapy does not need to be limited to the anti-CD3 antibody teplizumab.
For example, strategies such as high-dose oral insulin therapy are being investigated. Verapamil, which is used to treat hypertension, is also promising, since with it, beta cells were retained in early stage 3, and it improved their function. The fusion protein abatacept fell short of statistical significance in a recently published study. For Dr. Ziegler, one thing remains true. “The therapy of type 1 diabetes is about to undergo a renaissance.”
This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.