Diabetes

BOSTON – Intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to calorie restriction for shedding extra pounds, according to a new study of people with type 2 diabetes.

For the study, 57 overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to three different groups: The first group ate between noon and 8 p.m., the second was asked to reduce caloric intake by 25% of maintenance calories, and the third, a control group, continued eating normally.

The calorie-restriction group tracked intake on MyFitnessPal, an app that logs the calorie content of different foods. Both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups were assigned a dietitian to help with adherence.

After 6 months, participants in the intermittent-fasting group lost about 4.3% of body weight – the equivalent of 10 pounds of weight loss for a person weighing 230 pounds – whereas participants in the calorie-restriction group lost about 2.5% of body weight.

The difference between the two groups was not significant, so one approach isn’t necessarily better than the other for weight loss.

“Let’s not think of this as an approach that’s better than calorie restriction,” William Yancy, MD, MHS, an internist and weight management specialist at Duke Lifestyle and Weight Management Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “It’s an alternative approach to calorie restriction.”

Participants’ willingness to adhere to the diet likely accounted for the percentage difference between the groups, study author Vasiliki Pavlou, RDN, told this news organization. Ms. Pavlou presented the findings at the Nutrition 2023 conference.

“People that have type 2 diabetes, they’ve already been to the doctor, they’ve already been told to count calories,” said Ms. Pavlou, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “There were many weeks where they came to us with nothing on MyFitnessPal and we’d have to encourage them to start tracking again.”

The intermittent-fasting group adhered to the eating time window 6 out of 7 days of the week, with a 1-hour grace period for the noon-to-8-p.m. window. In comparison, one-third of the calorie-restriction group didn’t stay within 200 calories of the goal, according to Ms. Pavlou.

That meant the fasting group cut about 100 calories more per day than the calorie-restriction group, which was reflected in their weight loss, Ms. Pavlou said.

A1c levels dropped by about 1% in both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups – a meaningful decrease, said Dr. Yancy. “I think a 0.5% difference would have some clinical significance in terms of complications from diabetes,” he said. “So 1% would be even more clinically meaningful.”

However, fewer participants taking insulin in the calorie-restriction group could explain the difference, according to Ms. Pavlou. “Usually, when someone goes on insulin, their pancreas is already not functioning as well,” she said. “And it’s way harder to see improvements in their A1c and glycemic control.”

Up to 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. Weight loss is one of the major components of type 2 diabetes care, according to the American Diabetes Association, and studies have shown that even a 5% reduction in body weight can reduce blood glucose concentration and A1c. Some studies suggest diabetes remission can occur after a 10% loss in body weight, but Dr. Yancy said it depends on the person.

“It depends on the individual, their metabolic situation, how long they’ve had diabetes, what kind of approach they’re following, maybe what medicines they’re taking,” Dr. Yancy said. “There’s a lot of different factors involved in remission.”

The study cohort generally had advanced diabetes and was taking a mix of medications, so the results might not be applicable to people with a more recent diabetes diagnosis, according to Ms. Pavlou.

Dr. Yancy said intermittent fasting could work well for the right person. The success of the approach could depend on a person’s eating habits and whether their meals usually fall outside the time-restricted window, or it could depend on how well a person follows rules, according to Dr. Yancy.

“Some people might not eat much after 8 o’clock, and some people might skip breakfast,” Dr. Yancy said. “And if that’s the case, then it’s not going to make a big impact on their weight probably.”

Medication is also an important consideration. Not eating can be dangerous for patients taking short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, according to Dr. Yancy.

Ms. Pavlou said these findings show intermittent fasting is another option for patients with type 2 diabetes trying to lose weight. “If you’ve tried calorie counting, that’s not working for you or if you’re kind of burnt out, this is something else that you could try,” she said.

“We have a lot of patients that need to lose weight, and we have patients who respond differently to different approaches,” said Dr. Yancy. “So having various approaches is really valuable.”

The manuscript is currently under review at JAMA Internal Medicine, said Ms. Pavlou.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to calorie restriction for shedding extra pounds, according to a new study of people with type 2 diabetes.

For the study, 57 overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to three different groups: The first group ate between noon and 8 p.m., the second was asked to reduce caloric intake by 25% of maintenance calories, and the third, a control group, continued eating normally.

The calorie-restriction group tracked intake on MyFitnessPal, an app that logs the calorie content of different foods. Both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups were assigned a dietitian to help with adherence.

After 6 months, participants in the intermittent-fasting group lost about 4.3% of body weight – the equivalent of 10 pounds of weight loss for a person weighing 230 pounds – whereas participants in the calorie-restriction group lost about 2.5% of body weight.

The difference between the two groups was not significant, so one approach isn’t necessarily better than the other for weight loss.

“Let’s not think of this as an approach that’s better than calorie restriction,” William Yancy, MD, MHS, an internist and weight management specialist at Duke Lifestyle and Weight Management Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “It’s an alternative approach to calorie restriction.”

Participants’ willingness to adhere to the diet likely accounted for the percentage difference between the groups, study author Vasiliki Pavlou, RDN, told this news organization. Ms. Pavlou presented the findings at the Nutrition 2023 conference.

“People that have type 2 diabetes, they’ve already been to the doctor, they’ve already been told to count calories,” said Ms. Pavlou, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “There were many weeks where they came to us with nothing on MyFitnessPal and we’d have to encourage them to start tracking again.”

The intermittent-fasting group adhered to the eating time window 6 out of 7 days of the week, with a 1-hour grace period for the noon-to-8-p.m. window. In comparison, one-third of the calorie-restriction group didn’t stay within 200 calories of the goal, according to Ms. Pavlou.

That meant the fasting group cut about 100 calories more per day than the calorie-restriction group, which was reflected in their weight loss, Ms. Pavlou said.

A1c levels dropped by about 1% in both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups – a meaningful decrease, said Dr. Yancy. “I think a 0.5% difference would have some clinical significance in terms of complications from diabetes,” he said. “So 1% would be even more clinically meaningful.”

However, fewer participants taking insulin in the calorie-restriction group could explain the difference, according to Ms. Pavlou. “Usually, when someone goes on insulin, their pancreas is already not functioning as well,” she said. “And it’s way harder to see improvements in their A1c and glycemic control.”

Up to 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. Weight loss is one of the major components of type 2 diabetes care, according to the American Diabetes Association, and studies have shown that even a 5% reduction in body weight can reduce blood glucose concentration and A1c. Some studies suggest diabetes remission can occur after a 10% loss in body weight, but Dr. Yancy said it depends on the person.

“It depends on the individual, their metabolic situation, how long they’ve had diabetes, what kind of approach they’re following, maybe what medicines they’re taking,” Dr. Yancy said. “There’s a lot of different factors involved in remission.”

The study cohort generally had advanced diabetes and was taking a mix of medications, so the results might not be applicable to people with a more recent diabetes diagnosis, according to Ms. Pavlou.

Dr. Yancy said intermittent fasting could work well for the right person. The success of the approach could depend on a person’s eating habits and whether their meals usually fall outside the time-restricted window, or it could depend on how well a person follows rules, according to Dr. Yancy.

“Some people might not eat much after 8 o’clock, and some people might skip breakfast,” Dr. Yancy said. “And if that’s the case, then it’s not going to make a big impact on their weight probably.”

Medication is also an important consideration. Not eating can be dangerous for patients taking short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, according to Dr. Yancy.

Ms. Pavlou said these findings show intermittent fasting is another option for patients with type 2 diabetes trying to lose weight. “If you’ve tried calorie counting, that’s not working for you or if you’re kind of burnt out, this is something else that you could try,” she said.

“We have a lot of patients that need to lose weight, and we have patients who respond differently to different approaches,” said Dr. Yancy. “So having various approaches is really valuable.”

The manuscript is currently under review at JAMA Internal Medicine, said Ms. Pavlou.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – Intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to calorie restriction for shedding extra pounds, according to a new study of people with type 2 diabetes.

For the study, 57 overweight and obese participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to three different groups: The first group ate between noon and 8 p.m., the second was asked to reduce caloric intake by 25% of maintenance calories, and the third, a control group, continued eating normally.

The calorie-restriction group tracked intake on MyFitnessPal, an app that logs the calorie content of different foods. Both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups were assigned a dietitian to help with adherence.

After 6 months, participants in the intermittent-fasting group lost about 4.3% of body weight – the equivalent of 10 pounds of weight loss for a person weighing 230 pounds – whereas participants in the calorie-restriction group lost about 2.5% of body weight.

The difference between the two groups was not significant, so one approach isn’t necessarily better than the other for weight loss.

“Let’s not think of this as an approach that’s better than calorie restriction,” William Yancy, MD, MHS, an internist and weight management specialist at Duke Lifestyle and Weight Management Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “It’s an alternative approach to calorie restriction.”

Participants’ willingness to adhere to the diet likely accounted for the percentage difference between the groups, study author Vasiliki Pavlou, RDN, told this news organization. Ms. Pavlou presented the findings at the Nutrition 2023 conference.

“People that have type 2 diabetes, they’ve already been to the doctor, they’ve already been told to count calories,” said Ms. Pavlou, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “There were many weeks where they came to us with nothing on MyFitnessPal and we’d have to encourage them to start tracking again.”

The intermittent-fasting group adhered to the eating time window 6 out of 7 days of the week, with a 1-hour grace period for the noon-to-8-p.m. window. In comparison, one-third of the calorie-restriction group didn’t stay within 200 calories of the goal, according to Ms. Pavlou.

That meant the fasting group cut about 100 calories more per day than the calorie-restriction group, which was reflected in their weight loss, Ms. Pavlou said.

A1c levels dropped by about 1% in both the intermittent-fasting and calorie-restriction groups – a meaningful decrease, said Dr. Yancy. “I think a 0.5% difference would have some clinical significance in terms of complications from diabetes,” he said. “So 1% would be even more clinically meaningful.”

However, fewer participants taking insulin in the calorie-restriction group could explain the difference, according to Ms. Pavlou. “Usually, when someone goes on insulin, their pancreas is already not functioning as well,” she said. “And it’s way harder to see improvements in their A1c and glycemic control.”

Up to 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese. Weight loss is one of the major components of type 2 diabetes care, according to the American Diabetes Association, and studies have shown that even a 5% reduction in body weight can reduce blood glucose concentration and A1c. Some studies suggest diabetes remission can occur after a 10% loss in body weight, but Dr. Yancy said it depends on the person.

“It depends on the individual, their metabolic situation, how long they’ve had diabetes, what kind of approach they’re following, maybe what medicines they’re taking,” Dr. Yancy said. “There’s a lot of different factors involved in remission.”

The study cohort generally had advanced diabetes and was taking a mix of medications, so the results might not be applicable to people with a more recent diabetes diagnosis, according to Ms. Pavlou.

Dr. Yancy said intermittent fasting could work well for the right person. The success of the approach could depend on a person’s eating habits and whether their meals usually fall outside the time-restricted window, or it could depend on how well a person follows rules, according to Dr. Yancy.

“Some people might not eat much after 8 o’clock, and some people might skip breakfast,” Dr. Yancy said. “And if that’s the case, then it’s not going to make a big impact on their weight probably.”

Medication is also an important consideration. Not eating can be dangerous for patients taking short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, according to Dr. Yancy.

Ms. Pavlou said these findings show intermittent fasting is another option for patients with type 2 diabetes trying to lose weight. “If you’ve tried calorie counting, that’s not working for you or if you’re kind of burnt out, this is something else that you could try,” she said.

“We have a lot of patients that need to lose weight, and we have patients who respond differently to different approaches,” said Dr. Yancy. “So having various approaches is really valuable.”

The manuscript is currently under review at JAMA Internal Medicine, said Ms. Pavlou.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence summary

Continuous glucose monitoring: Nonsignificant reductions in event rates

A 2021 multicenter RCT (N = 175) evaluated CGM effectiveness in patients with basal ­insulin–treated T2D.¹ Patients (mean age, 57 years; mean A1C, 9.1%) wore a blinded CGM device for baseline glucose measurement (minimum of 168 hours) before being randomly assigned to either CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM; n = 59). At 8-month follow-up, patients in the BGM group again had blinded sensors placed. A significant reduction in hypoglycemia duration was observed for the CGM group vs the BGM group at 8 months for glucose values < 70 mg/mL (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = –0.24%; 95% CI, –0.42 to –0.05) and < 54 mg/dL (aMD = –0.10%; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.04). A nonsignificant decrease in severe hypoglycemic events requiring resuscitative assistance occurred for BGM (2%) vs CGM (1%) patients. Study limitations included virtual visits due to COVID-19 and a short follow-­up period.

A 2022 multicenter prospective study (N = 174) examined CGM effects on hypoglycemia frequency and severity in adults with T2D.² Patients with insulin-requiring T2D (mean age, 61 years; mean A1C, 8.0%) participated in a 12-month study with 6 months of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) followed by 6 months of CGM use. The primary outcome was the rate of severe hypoglycemic events. A nonsignificant decrease was observed in the CGM group compared to the SMBG group for hypoglycemic event rate, per participant per 6-month period (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.07-2.64). Four moderate hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in the SMBG phase vs 2 in the CGM phase. Financial support by the study sponsor decreases the study’s validity.

A 2021 prospective study (N = 90) evaluated the use of CGM to improve glycemic control.³ Patients younger than 66 years with insulin-treated T2D and an A1C > 7.5% participated in a 7-day blinded CGM cycle every 4 months for 1 year. A nonsignificant decrease in hypoglycemia duration was observed for glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL at 12 months. No change in hypoglycemic event rate was seen with the use of CGM. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Flash glucose monitoring: Mixed results on hypoglycemia events

A 2019 open-label RCT (N = 82) assessed the effectiveness of FGM on diabetes control.⁴ Patients with insulin-treated T2D were randomly assigned to the intervention or standard­-care groups. The intervention group (n = 46; mean age, 66 years; mean A1C, 8.3%) used the FGM system for 10 weeks, while the standard-care group (n = 36; mean age, 70 years; mean A1C, 8.9%) maintained use of their glucometers. Both groups received similar types and duration of counseling. Treatment satisfaction was the primary outcome; total hypoglycemic events was a secondary outcome. No significant difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes was observed between the intervention and control groups at 55 to 70 mg/dL (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44-1.4) or < 54 mg/dL (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.38-4.2). No adverse events of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring do not decrease symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes but do lower time in hypoglycemia.

A 2017 open-label, multicenter RCT (N = 224) assessed FGM efficacy.⁵ Adults (mean age, 59 years; mean A1C, 8.8%) with T2D on intensive insulin therapy were randomized to FGM (n = 149) or SMBG (n = 75) after a 14-day masked baseline period. The 6-month treatment phase was unblinded. The duration of hypoglycemic events (glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL) was obtained from the sensors. Compared to the SMBG group, the FGM group spent 43% less time at < 70 mg/dL (aMD = –0.47 ± 0.13 h/d; P = .0006) and 53% less time at < 55 mg/dL (aMD = –0.22 ± 0.068 h/d; P = .0014). Hypoglycemic event rates significantly decreased by 28% (aMD = –0.16 ± 0.065; P = 0.016) and 44% (aMD = –0.12 ± 0.037; P = .0017) for glucose levels < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL, respectively. A nonsignificant difference occurred in severe hypoglycemic events requiring third-party assistance for the FGM (2%) vs control (1%) groups. Involvement of the device manufacturer and unblinded group allocations are study limitations.

A 2021 single-arm, multicenter prospective study looked at the impact of FGM on glycemic control in adults with insulin-treated T2D (N = 90; mean age, 64 years; mean A1C, 7.5%).⁶ After a 14-day baseline period consisting of masked sensor readings paired with self-monitored fingerstick tests, participants were followed for 11 weeks using the sensor to monitor glucose levels. The primary outcome was amount of time spent in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL), with secondary outcomes including time and events in hypoglycemia (< 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/dL). No significant decrease in hypoglycemia duration or hypoglycemic event rates at < 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/­dL was observed for FGM compared to baseline. Adverse events were observed in 64% of participants; 94% of the events were hypoglycemia related. Serious adverse events were reported for 5.3% of participants. The single-arm study format, lack of generalizability due to the single-race study population, and sponsor support were study limitations.

Editor’s takeaway

This reasonably good evidence shows a decrease in measured or monitored hypoglycemia, a disease-oriented outcome, but it did not reach statistical significance for symptomatic hypoglycemia (1% vs 2%), a patient-oriented outcome. Nevertheless, in patients reporting symptomatic hypoglycemia, a continuous or flash glucose monitor may allow for more aggressive glucose control.

Evidence summary

Continuous glucose monitoring: Nonsignificant reductions in event rates

A 2021 multicenter RCT (N = 175) evaluated CGM effectiveness in patients with basal ­insulin–treated T2D.¹ Patients (mean age, 57 years; mean A1C, 9.1%) wore a blinded CGM device for baseline glucose measurement (minimum of 168 hours) before being randomly assigned to either CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM; n = 59). At 8-month follow-up, patients in the BGM group again had blinded sensors placed. A significant reduction in hypoglycemia duration was observed for the CGM group vs the BGM group at 8 months for glucose values < 70 mg/mL (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = –0.24%; 95% CI, –0.42 to –0.05) and < 54 mg/dL (aMD = –0.10%; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.04). A nonsignificant decrease in severe hypoglycemic events requiring resuscitative assistance occurred for BGM (2%) vs CGM (1%) patients. Study limitations included virtual visits due to COVID-19 and a short follow-­up period.

A 2022 multicenter prospective study (N = 174) examined CGM effects on hypoglycemia frequency and severity in adults with T2D.² Patients with insulin-requiring T2D (mean age, 61 years; mean A1C, 8.0%) participated in a 12-month study with 6 months of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) followed by 6 months of CGM use. The primary outcome was the rate of severe hypoglycemic events. A nonsignificant decrease was observed in the CGM group compared to the SMBG group for hypoglycemic event rate, per participant per 6-month period (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.07-2.64). Four moderate hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in the SMBG phase vs 2 in the CGM phase. Financial support by the study sponsor decreases the study’s validity.

A 2021 prospective study (N = 90) evaluated the use of CGM to improve glycemic control.³ Patients younger than 66 years with insulin-treated T2D and an A1C > 7.5% participated in a 7-day blinded CGM cycle every 4 months for 1 year. A nonsignificant decrease in hypoglycemia duration was observed for glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL at 12 months. No change in hypoglycemic event rate was seen with the use of CGM. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Flash glucose monitoring: Mixed results on hypoglycemia events

A 2019 open-label RCT (N = 82) assessed the effectiveness of FGM on diabetes control.⁴ Patients with insulin-treated T2D were randomly assigned to the intervention or standard­-care groups. The intervention group (n = 46; mean age, 66 years; mean A1C, 8.3%) used the FGM system for 10 weeks, while the standard-care group (n = 36; mean age, 70 years; mean A1C, 8.9%) maintained use of their glucometers. Both groups received similar types and duration of counseling. Treatment satisfaction was the primary outcome; total hypoglycemic events was a secondary outcome. No significant difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes was observed between the intervention and control groups at 55 to 70 mg/dL (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44-1.4) or < 54 mg/dL (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.38-4.2). No adverse events of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring do not decrease symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes but do lower time in hypoglycemia.

A 2017 open-label, multicenter RCT (N = 224) assessed FGM efficacy.⁵ Adults (mean age, 59 years; mean A1C, 8.8%) with T2D on intensive insulin therapy were randomized to FGM (n = 149) or SMBG (n = 75) after a 14-day masked baseline period. The 6-month treatment phase was unblinded. The duration of hypoglycemic events (glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL) was obtained from the sensors. Compared to the SMBG group, the FGM group spent 43% less time at < 70 mg/dL (aMD = –0.47 ± 0.13 h/d; P = .0006) and 53% less time at < 55 mg/dL (aMD = –0.22 ± 0.068 h/d; P = .0014). Hypoglycemic event rates significantly decreased by 28% (aMD = –0.16 ± 0.065; P = 0.016) and 44% (aMD = –0.12 ± 0.037; P = .0017) for glucose levels < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL, respectively. A nonsignificant difference occurred in severe hypoglycemic events requiring third-party assistance for the FGM (2%) vs control (1%) groups. Involvement of the device manufacturer and unblinded group allocations are study limitations.

A 2021 single-arm, multicenter prospective study looked at the impact of FGM on glycemic control in adults with insulin-treated T2D (N = 90; mean age, 64 years; mean A1C, 7.5%).⁶ After a 14-day baseline period consisting of masked sensor readings paired with self-monitored fingerstick tests, participants were followed for 11 weeks using the sensor to monitor glucose levels. The primary outcome was amount of time spent in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL), with secondary outcomes including time and events in hypoglycemia (< 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/dL). No significant decrease in hypoglycemia duration or hypoglycemic event rates at < 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/­dL was observed for FGM compared to baseline. Adverse events were observed in 64% of participants; 94% of the events were hypoglycemia related. Serious adverse events were reported for 5.3% of participants. The single-arm study format, lack of generalizability due to the single-race study population, and sponsor support were study limitations.

Editor’s takeaway

This reasonably good evidence shows a decrease in measured or monitored hypoglycemia, a disease-oriented outcome, but it did not reach statistical significance for symptomatic hypoglycemia (1% vs 2%), a patient-oriented outcome. Nevertheless, in patients reporting symptomatic hypoglycemia, a continuous or flash glucose monitor may allow for more aggressive glucose control.

Evidence summary

Continuous glucose monitoring: Nonsignificant reductions in event rates

A 2021 multicenter RCT (N = 175) evaluated CGM effectiveness in patients with basal ­insulin–treated T2D.¹ Patients (mean age, 57 years; mean A1C, 9.1%) wore a blinded CGM device for baseline glucose measurement (minimum of 168 hours) before being randomly assigned to either CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM; n = 59). At 8-month follow-up, patients in the BGM group again had blinded sensors placed. A significant reduction in hypoglycemia duration was observed for the CGM group vs the BGM group at 8 months for glucose values < 70 mg/mL (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = –0.24%; 95% CI, –0.42 to –0.05) and < 54 mg/dL (aMD = –0.10%; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.04). A nonsignificant decrease in severe hypoglycemic events requiring resuscitative assistance occurred for BGM (2%) vs CGM (1%) patients. Study limitations included virtual visits due to COVID-19 and a short follow-­up period.

A 2022 multicenter prospective study (N = 174) examined CGM effects on hypoglycemia frequency and severity in adults with T2D.² Patients with insulin-requiring T2D (mean age, 61 years; mean A1C, 8.0%) participated in a 12-month study with 6 months of self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) followed by 6 months of CGM use. The primary outcome was the rate of severe hypoglycemic events. A nonsignificant decrease was observed in the CGM group compared to the SMBG group for hypoglycemic event rate, per participant per 6-month period (relative risk [RR] = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.07-2.64). Four moderate hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in the SMBG phase vs 2 in the CGM phase. Financial support by the study sponsor decreases the study’s validity.

A 2021 prospective study (N = 90) evaluated the use of CGM to improve glycemic control.³ Patients younger than 66 years with insulin-treated T2D and an A1C > 7.5% participated in a 7-day blinded CGM cycle every 4 months for 1 year. A nonsignificant decrease in hypoglycemia duration was observed for glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 54 mg/dL at 12 months. No change in hypoglycemic event rate was seen with the use of CGM. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Flash glucose monitoring: Mixed results on hypoglycemia events

A 2019 open-label RCT (N = 82) assessed the effectiveness of FGM on diabetes control.⁴ Patients with insulin-treated T2D were randomly assigned to the intervention or standard­-care groups. The intervention group (n = 46; mean age, 66 years; mean A1C, 8.3%) used the FGM system for 10 weeks, while the standard-care group (n = 36; mean age, 70 years; mean A1C, 8.9%) maintained use of their glucometers. Both groups received similar types and duration of counseling. Treatment satisfaction was the primary outcome; total hypoglycemic events was a secondary outcome. No significant difference in the number of hypoglycemic episodes was observed between the intervention and control groups at 55 to 70 mg/dL (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.44-1.4) or < 54 mg/dL (RR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.38-4.2). No adverse events of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study. Funding by the device manufacturer was a limitation of this study.

Continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring do not decrease symptomatic hypoglycemia episodes but do lower time in hypoglycemia.

A 2017 open-label, multicenter RCT (N = 224) assessed FGM efficacy.⁵ Adults (mean age, 59 years; mean A1C, 8.8%) with T2D on intensive insulin therapy were randomized to FGM (n = 149) or SMBG (n = 75) after a 14-day masked baseline period. The 6-month treatment phase was unblinded. The duration of hypoglycemic events (glucose values < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL) was obtained from the sensors. Compared to the SMBG group, the FGM group spent 43% less time at < 70 mg/dL (aMD = –0.47 ± 0.13 h/d; P = .0006) and 53% less time at < 55 mg/dL (aMD = –0.22 ± 0.068 h/d; P = .0014). Hypoglycemic event rates significantly decreased by 28% (aMD = –0.16 ± 0.065; P = 0.016) and 44% (aMD = –0.12 ± 0.037; P = .0017) for glucose levels < 70 mg/dL and < 55 mg/dL, respectively. A nonsignificant difference occurred in severe hypoglycemic events requiring third-party assistance for the FGM (2%) vs control (1%) groups. Involvement of the device manufacturer and unblinded group allocations are study limitations.

A 2021 single-arm, multicenter prospective study looked at the impact of FGM on glycemic control in adults with insulin-treated T2D (N = 90; mean age, 64 years; mean A1C, 7.5%).⁶ After a 14-day baseline period consisting of masked sensor readings paired with self-monitored fingerstick tests, participants were followed for 11 weeks using the sensor to monitor glucose levels. The primary outcome was amount of time spent in hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dL), with secondary outcomes including time and events in hypoglycemia (< 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/dL). No significant decrease in hypoglycemia duration or hypoglycemic event rates at < 70, < 55, or < 45 mg/­dL was observed for FGM compared to baseline. Adverse events were observed in 64% of participants; 94% of the events were hypoglycemia related. Serious adverse events were reported for 5.3% of participants. The single-arm study format, lack of generalizability due to the single-race study population, and sponsor support were study limitations.

Editor’s takeaway

This reasonably good evidence shows a decrease in measured or monitored hypoglycemia, a disease-oriented outcome, but it did not reach statistical significance for symptomatic hypoglycemia (1% vs 2%), a patient-oriented outcome. Nevertheless, in patients reporting symptomatic hypoglycemia, a continuous or flash glucose monitor may allow for more aggressive glucose control.

Metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the “diabetes syndrome,” are interrelated, serious health conditions that share common risk factors and mechanisms. While they are each distinct conditions, a significant association exists between them, with metabolic syndrome often being considered a precursor to the development of typical T2DM.

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of individual metabolic abnormalities that includes a combination of risk factors such as abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, elevated insulin levels, high triglyceride levels, and low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol related to genes and epigenetic changes associated with insulin resistance. These risk factors increase the likelihood of developing cardiovascular diseases, such as heart disease and stroke, and, when combined with significant damage to β -cell function and the influence of concordant environmental precipitants, result in hyperglycemia/overt diabetes—classically defined as T2DM.

It is estimated that there will be a staggering 3.1 billion people living with T2DM by 2050, according to a recent article in The Lancet. This devastating number will place a heavy burden on the health care system. 

However, this typical pathophysiologic definition of T2DM is imprecise. Twenty percent of patients with T2DM have islet-cell antibodies that are typical of the immune destruction of β-cells in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Furthermore, approximately 40% of patients with T1DM have insulin resistance.

Thus, to better understand and distinguish the disease processes unique to each individual, we have defined a new beta cell classification for all forms of diabetes mellitus (DM). In this classification, there are 4 common pathophysiologic causes of all DM (including classic T2DM), with resultant damage to the β-cells (ie, genetic and epigenetic changes, inflammation, an abnormal environment, and insulin resistance), which results in 11 mechanisms of hyperglycemia, represented as “the egregious eleven” in Figure 1. 

Additionally, Figure 2 illustrates the association between overlapping genes/epigenetic changes responsible for DM and the increased susceptibility to developing various microvascular complications commonly observed in all forms of DM, including classic T2DM. These complications, now recognized as components of the diabetes syndrome, encompass a range of conditions with shared interrelated pathophysiologic mechanisms, such as arteriosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD), dementia, some cancers, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH), or psoriasis. 

The likelihood of developing a specific type of DM, with classic complications or associated conditions, is contingent on an individual’s genes, epigenetic factors, inflammation, insulin resistance, and environmental exposures over time. It has now been postulated that these factors can be identified in a particular individual by a set of genomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and markers of these processes. 

This more precise approach has the added benefit of giving rise to a more accurate individualization of therapy—precision medicine.

Precision medicine is an approach to healthcare that considers an individual's specific characteristics, such as genetic makeup, lifestyle, and environmental factors, to tailor medical treatments and interventions. In the context of this discussion on T2DM, precision medicine’s goal is to provide targeted therapies and interventions based on an individual's unique -omic profile to improve treatment outcomes and minimize side effects. An additional benefit of precision medicine use in diabetes syndrome is giving the diabetes specialist the opportunity to treat the whole patient, looking for complications and associated conditions earlier via defining the presence or absence of various markers of their individual pathophysiology. Additionally, we have come to recognize that many of the medications for treating T2DM (eg, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors [DPP-4 inhibitors], sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT-2 inhibitors], metformin, Cycloset [bromocriptine mesylate]) can offer other benefits for the patient—treating not only multiple mechanisms of hyperglycemia (the egregious eleven: use the fewest number of agents in combination to treat the most number of mechanisms of hyperglycemia) but also recognize that they can prevent and treat the complications and associated conditions of the diabetes syndrome: cardiovascular, renal, liver, some cancers, psoriasis, and dementia. 

The classic link between metabolic syndrome and T2DM is important to consider when applying precision medicine approaches to the management of T2DM. Here are some examples of how precision medicine is being applied in the management of T2DM:

• Genetic testing: Genetic testing can help identify specific genetic variants or mutations that may influence an individual's risk of developing T2DM or their response to certain medications. By understanding a person's genetic predisposition, clinicians can make more informed decisions about treatment options and develop personalized strategies for their patients.

• Pharmacogenomics: Certain genetic variations can impact how a person metabolizes and responds to specific diabetes medications. By analyzing an individual's genetic profile, medications that are more likely to be effective and have fewer adverse effects for that patient may be selected.

• Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM): CGM devices provide real-time information about an individual’s blood glucose levels, allowing for more precise management of diabetes. By continuously monitoring glucose levels, patterns can be identified, allowing for adjustments to medication dosages, dietary recommendations, and lifestyle modifications on an individualized basis.

• Lifestyle interventions: Precision medicine also recognizes that lifestyle factors play a crucial role in the development and management of T2DM. Lifestyle interventions, such as diet and exercise plans, based on an individual's preferences, metabolic profile, and response to different interventions can be personalized (ie, some individuals may benefit more from a low-carbohydrate diet, while others may respond better to a Mediterranean-style diet).

• Predictive modeling and risk stratification: Precision medicine leverages data analytics and predictive modeling to assess an individual's risk of developing complications associated with T2DM. By analyzing various factors such as medical history, genetics, lifestyle, and biomarkers, individuals who are at a higher risk of developing complications can be identified, and their treatment plans can be tailored accordingly. Precision medicine enables early identification of individuals who are at a higher risk of developing T2DM based on their metabolic syndrome status.

In summary, precision medicine for T2DM considers the link between metabolic syndrome and diabetes syndrome to develop personalized approaches for prevention, early intervention, and treatment. By understanding an individual's metabolic and genetic profile, targeted strategies to optimize management and improve outcomes for patients with metabolic syndrome and those at risk of developing diabetes can be implemented. 

It is important to note that while precision medicine holds promise in improving diabetes management, it is still an evolving field, and its widespread implementation is not yet fully realized. Collaboration between clinicians, researchers, and technological advancements will continue to drive the progress of precision medicine in T2DM management.

Metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the “diabetes syndrome,” are interrelated, serious health conditions that share common risk factors and mechanisms. While they are each distinct conditions, a significant association exists between them, with metabolic syndrome often being considered a precursor to the development of typical T2DM.

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of individual metabolic abnormalities that includes a combination of risk factors such as abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, elevated insulin levels, high triglyceride levels, and low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol related to genes and epigenetic changes associated with insulin resistance. These risk factors increase the likelihood of developing cardiovascular diseases, such as heart disease and stroke, and, when combined with significant damage to β -cell function and the influence of concordant environmental precipitants, result in hyperglycemia/overt diabetes—classically defined as T2DM.

It is estimated that there will be a staggering 3.1 billion people living with T2DM by 2050, according to a recent article in The Lancet. This devastating number will place a heavy burden on the health care system. 

However, this typical pathophysiologic definition of T2DM is imprecise. Twenty percent of patients with T2DM have islet-cell antibodies that are typical of the immune destruction of β-cells in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Furthermore, approximately 40% of patients with T1DM have insulin resistance.

Thus, to better understand and distinguish the disease processes unique to each individual, we have defined a new beta cell classification for all forms of diabetes mellitus (DM). In this classification, there are 4 common pathophysiologic causes of all DM (including classic T2DM), with resultant damage to the β-cells (ie, genetic and epigenetic changes, inflammation, an abnormal environment, and insulin resistance), which results in 11 mechanisms of hyperglycemia, represented as “the egregious eleven” in Figure 1. 

Additionally, Figure 2 illustrates the association between overlapping genes/epigenetic changes responsible for DM and the increased susceptibility to developing various microvascular complications commonly observed in all forms of DM, including classic T2DM. These complications, now recognized as components of the diabetes syndrome, encompass a range of conditions with shared interrelated pathophysiologic mechanisms, such as arteriosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD), dementia, some cancers, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH), or psoriasis. 

The likelihood of developing a specific type of DM, with classic complications or associated conditions, is contingent on an individual’s genes, epigenetic factors, inflammation, insulin resistance, and environmental exposures over time. It has now been postulated that these factors can be identified in a particular individual by a set of genomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and markers of these processes. 

This more precise approach has the added benefit of giving rise to a more accurate individualization of therapy—precision medicine.

Precision medicine is an approach to healthcare that considers an individual's specific characteristics, such as genetic makeup, lifestyle, and environmental factors, to tailor medical treatments and interventions. In the context of this discussion on T2DM, precision medicine’s goal is to provide targeted therapies and interventions based on an individual's unique -omic profile to improve treatment outcomes and minimize side effects. An additional benefit of precision medicine use in diabetes syndrome is giving the diabetes specialist the opportunity to treat the whole patient, looking for complications and associated conditions earlier via defining the presence or absence of various markers of their individual pathophysiology. Additionally, we have come to recognize that many of the medications for treating T2DM (eg, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors [DPP-4 inhibitors], sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT-2 inhibitors], metformin, Cycloset [bromocriptine mesylate]) can offer other benefits for the patient—treating not only multiple mechanisms of hyperglycemia (the egregious eleven: use the fewest number of agents in combination to treat the most number of mechanisms of hyperglycemia) but also recognize that they can prevent and treat the complications and associated conditions of the diabetes syndrome: cardiovascular, renal, liver, some cancers, psoriasis, and dementia. 

The classic link between metabolic syndrome and T2DM is important to consider when applying precision medicine approaches to the management of T2DM. Here are some examples of how precision medicine is being applied in the management of T2DM:

• Genetic testing: Genetic testing can help identify specific genetic variants or mutations that may influence an individual's risk of developing T2DM or their response to certain medications. By understanding a person's genetic predisposition, clinicians can make more informed decisions about treatment options and develop personalized strategies for their patients.

• Pharmacogenomics: Certain genetic variations can impact how a person metabolizes and responds to specific diabetes medications. By analyzing an individual's genetic profile, medications that are more likely to be effective and have fewer adverse effects for that patient may be selected.

• Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM): CGM devices provide real-time information about an individual’s blood glucose levels, allowing for more precise management of diabetes. By continuously monitoring glucose levels, patterns can be identified, allowing for adjustments to medication dosages, dietary recommendations, and lifestyle modifications on an individualized basis.

• Lifestyle interventions: Precision medicine also recognizes that lifestyle factors play a crucial role in the development and management of T2DM. Lifestyle interventions, such as diet and exercise plans, based on an individual's preferences, metabolic profile, and response to different interventions can be personalized (ie, some individuals may benefit more from a low-carbohydrate diet, while others may respond better to a Mediterranean-style diet).

• Predictive modeling and risk stratification: Precision medicine leverages data analytics and predictive modeling to assess an individual's risk of developing complications associated with T2DM. By analyzing various factors such as medical history, genetics, lifestyle, and biomarkers, individuals who are at a higher risk of developing complications can be identified, and their treatment plans can be tailored accordingly. Precision medicine enables early identification of individuals who are at a higher risk of developing T2DM based on their metabolic syndrome status.

In summary, precision medicine for T2DM considers the link between metabolic syndrome and diabetes syndrome to develop personalized approaches for prevention, early intervention, and treatment. By understanding an individual's metabolic and genetic profile, targeted strategies to optimize management and improve outcomes for patients with metabolic syndrome and those at risk of developing diabetes can be implemented. 

It is important to note that while precision medicine holds promise in improving diabetes management, it is still an evolving field, and its widespread implementation is not yet fully realized. Collaboration between clinicians, researchers, and technological advancements will continue to drive the progress of precision medicine in T2DM management.

Metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the “diabetes syndrome,” are interrelated, serious health conditions that share common risk factors and mechanisms. While they are each distinct conditions, a significant association exists between them, with metabolic syndrome often being considered a precursor to the development of typical T2DM.

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of individual metabolic abnormalities that includes a combination of risk factors such as abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, elevated insulin levels, high triglyceride levels, and low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol related to genes and epigenetic changes associated with insulin resistance. These risk factors increase the likelihood of developing cardiovascular diseases, such as heart disease and stroke, and, when combined with significant damage to β -cell function and the influence of concordant environmental precipitants, result in hyperglycemia/overt diabetes—classically defined as T2DM.

It is estimated that there will be a staggering 3.1 billion people living with T2DM by 2050, according to a recent article in The Lancet. This devastating number will place a heavy burden on the health care system. 

However, this typical pathophysiologic definition of T2DM is imprecise. Twenty percent of patients with T2DM have islet-cell antibodies that are typical of the immune destruction of β-cells in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Furthermore, approximately 40% of patients with T1DM have insulin resistance.

Thus, to better understand and distinguish the disease processes unique to each individual, we have defined a new beta cell classification for all forms of diabetes mellitus (DM). In this classification, there are 4 common pathophysiologic causes of all DM (including classic T2DM), with resultant damage to the β-cells (ie, genetic and epigenetic changes, inflammation, an abnormal environment, and insulin resistance), which results in 11 mechanisms of hyperglycemia, represented as “the egregious eleven” in Figure 1. 

Additionally, Figure 2 illustrates the association between overlapping genes/epigenetic changes responsible for DM and the increased susceptibility to developing various microvascular complications commonly observed in all forms of DM, including classic T2DM. These complications, now recognized as components of the diabetes syndrome, encompass a range of conditions with shared interrelated pathophysiologic mechanisms, such as arteriosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD), dementia, some cancers, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NAFLD/NASH), or psoriasis. 

The likelihood of developing a specific type of DM, with classic complications or associated conditions, is contingent on an individual’s genes, epigenetic factors, inflammation, insulin resistance, and environmental exposures over time. It has now been postulated that these factors can be identified in a particular individual by a set of genomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and markers of these processes. 

This more precise approach has the added benefit of giving rise to a more accurate individualization of therapy—precision medicine.

Precision medicine is an approach to healthcare that considers an individual's specific characteristics, such as genetic makeup, lifestyle, and environmental factors, to tailor medical treatments and interventions. In the context of this discussion on T2DM, precision medicine’s goal is to provide targeted therapies and interventions based on an individual's unique -omic profile to improve treatment outcomes and minimize side effects. An additional benefit of precision medicine use in diabetes syndrome is giving the diabetes specialist the opportunity to treat the whole patient, looking for complications and associated conditions earlier via defining the presence or absence of various markers of their individual pathophysiology. Additionally, we have come to recognize that many of the medications for treating T2DM (eg, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1 RA], dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors [DPP-4 inhibitors], sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT-2 inhibitors], metformin, Cycloset [bromocriptine mesylate]) can offer other benefits for the patient—treating not only multiple mechanisms of hyperglycemia (the egregious eleven: use the fewest number of agents in combination to treat the most number of mechanisms of hyperglycemia) but also recognize that they can prevent and treat the complications and associated conditions of the diabetes syndrome: cardiovascular, renal, liver, some cancers, psoriasis, and dementia. 

The classic link between metabolic syndrome and T2DM is important to consider when applying precision medicine approaches to the management of T2DM. Here are some examples of how precision medicine is being applied in the management of T2DM:

• Genetic testing: Genetic testing can help identify specific genetic variants or mutations that may influence an individual's risk of developing T2DM or their response to certain medications. By understanding a person's genetic predisposition, clinicians can make more informed decisions about treatment options and develop personalized strategies for their patients.

• Pharmacogenomics: Certain genetic variations can impact how a person metabolizes and responds to specific diabetes medications. By analyzing an individual's genetic profile, medications that are more likely to be effective and have fewer adverse effects for that patient may be selected.

• Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM): CGM devices provide real-time information about an individual’s blood glucose levels, allowing for more precise management of diabetes. By continuously monitoring glucose levels, patterns can be identified, allowing for adjustments to medication dosages, dietary recommendations, and lifestyle modifications on an individualized basis.

• Lifestyle interventions: Precision medicine also recognizes that lifestyle factors play a crucial role in the development and management of T2DM. Lifestyle interventions, such as diet and exercise plans, based on an individual's preferences, metabolic profile, and response to different interventions can be personalized (ie, some individuals may benefit more from a low-carbohydrate diet, while others may respond better to a Mediterranean-style diet).

• Predictive modeling and risk stratification: Precision medicine leverages data analytics and predictive modeling to assess an individual's risk of developing complications associated with T2DM. By analyzing various factors such as medical history, genetics, lifestyle, and biomarkers, individuals who are at a higher risk of developing complications can be identified, and their treatment plans can be tailored accordingly. Precision medicine enables early identification of individuals who are at a higher risk of developing T2DM based on their metabolic syndrome status.

In summary, precision medicine for T2DM considers the link between metabolic syndrome and diabetes syndrome to develop personalized approaches for prevention, early intervention, and treatment. By understanding an individual's metabolic and genetic profile, targeted strategies to optimize management and improve outcomes for patients with metabolic syndrome and those at risk of developing diabetes can be implemented. 

It is important to note that while precision medicine holds promise in improving diabetes management, it is still an evolving field, and its widespread implementation is not yet fully realized. Collaboration between clinicians, researchers, and technological advancements will continue to drive the progress of precision medicine in T2DM management.

TOPLINE:

Among patients with type 1 diabetes, glycemic control may worsen in the 2 weeks after a heat wave, according to research published online May 17 in Science of The Total Environment.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers in Spain analyzed data from 2,701 adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices during a 2022 heat wave (July 9-26) and 14 days after. Extreme heat claimed nearly 62,000 lives across Europe in the summer of 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

Time in range (between 70 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL of interstitial glucose) decreased by 4%, from 60.8% during the heat wave to 54.8% after (P < .001).

Patients who scanned their CGM results the most during the heat wave (more than 13 scans per day) scanned less often after the weather broke (1.8 fewer scans per day) and experienced the biggest drop in time in range (−5.4%).

More patients met all time-in-range recommendations during the heat wave (10.6% vs. 8.4%, P < .001).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“We hypothesized that people with diabetes, who are highly vulnerable, have more time for self-management as they spend more time indoors,” study author Jesús Moreno Fernández, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, something similar was observed among people with diabetes.”

SOURCE:

Moreno Fernández, with the department of endocrinology and nutrition at Ciudad Real General University Hospital in Spain, is the study’s lead author.

LIMITATIONS:

The CGM data were anonymized, so researchers could not examine how individual patient factors like sex, education, or treatment type may have influenced outcomes. Temperatures remained higher than usual even after the heat wave. Worsening glycemic control could be interpreted as a lag effect of prolonged heat exposure, the researchers note.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with type 1 diabetes, glycemic control may worsen in the 2 weeks after a heat wave, according to research published online May 17 in Science of The Total Environment.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers in Spain analyzed data from 2,701 adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices during a 2022 heat wave (July 9-26) and 14 days after. Extreme heat claimed nearly 62,000 lives across Europe in the summer of 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

Time in range (between 70 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL of interstitial glucose) decreased by 4%, from 60.8% during the heat wave to 54.8% after (P < .001).

Patients who scanned their CGM results the most during the heat wave (more than 13 scans per day) scanned less often after the weather broke (1.8 fewer scans per day) and experienced the biggest drop in time in range (−5.4%).

More patients met all time-in-range recommendations during the heat wave (10.6% vs. 8.4%, P < .001).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“We hypothesized that people with diabetes, who are highly vulnerable, have more time for self-management as they spend more time indoors,” study author Jesús Moreno Fernández, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, something similar was observed among people with diabetes.”

SOURCE:

Moreno Fernández, with the department of endocrinology and nutrition at Ciudad Real General University Hospital in Spain, is the study’s lead author.

LIMITATIONS:

The CGM data were anonymized, so researchers could not examine how individual patient factors like sex, education, or treatment type may have influenced outcomes. Temperatures remained higher than usual even after the heat wave. Worsening glycemic control could be interpreted as a lag effect of prolonged heat exposure, the researchers note.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among patients with type 1 diabetes, glycemic control may worsen in the 2 weeks after a heat wave, according to research published online May 17 in Science of The Total Environment.

METHODOLOGY:

Researchers in Spain analyzed data from 2,701 adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices during a 2022 heat wave (July 9-26) and 14 days after. Extreme heat claimed nearly 62,000 lives across Europe in the summer of 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

Time in range (between 70 mg/dL and 180 mg/dL of interstitial glucose) decreased by 4%, from 60.8% during the heat wave to 54.8% after (P < .001).

Patients who scanned their CGM results the most during the heat wave (more than 13 scans per day) scanned less often after the weather broke (1.8 fewer scans per day) and experienced the biggest drop in time in range (−5.4%).

More patients met all time-in-range recommendations during the heat wave (10.6% vs. 8.4%, P < .001).
 

IN PRACTICE:

“We hypothesized that people with diabetes, who are highly vulnerable, have more time for self-management as they spend more time indoors,” study author Jesús Moreno Fernández, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, something similar was observed among people with diabetes.”

SOURCE:

Moreno Fernández, with the department of endocrinology and nutrition at Ciudad Real General University Hospital in Spain, is the study’s lead author.

LIMITATIONS:

The CGM data were anonymized, so researchers could not examine how individual patient factors like sex, education, or treatment type may have influenced outcomes. Temperatures remained higher than usual even after the heat wave. Worsening glycemic control could be interpreted as a lag effect of prolonged heat exposure, the researchers note.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.

CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.

CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.

In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.

Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.

I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.

DiabetesWisePro  has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.

Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:

• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).

• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.

The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.

Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.

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

Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.

CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.

CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.

In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.

Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.

I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.

DiabetesWisePro  has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.

Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:

• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).

• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.

The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.

Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.

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

Nearly 90% of diabetes management in the United States is provided by primary care clinicians; diabetes is the fifth most common reason for a primary care visit. State-of-the-art technology such as continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) will inevitably transform the management of diabetes in primary care. Clinicians and staff must be ready to educate, counsel, and support primary care patients in the use of CGMs.

CGMs (also called glucose sensors) are small, minimally invasive devices that attach to the skin of the upper arm or trunk. A tiny electrode in the subcutaneous space prompts an enzyme reaction that measures the interstitial (rather than blood) glucose concentration, typically every 5 minutes. The results are displayed on an accompanying reader or transmitted to an app on the user’s mobile phone.

CGMs could eliminate the need for finger-stick blood glucose testing, which until now, has been the much-despised gold standard for self-monitoring of glucose levels in diabetes. Despite being relatively inexpensive and accurate, finger-stick glucose tests are inconvenient and often painful. But of greater significance is this downside: Finger-stick monitoring reveals the patient’s blood glucose concentration at a single point in time, which can be difficult to interpret. Is the blood glucose rising or falling? Multiple finger-stick tests are required to determine the trend of a patient’s glucose levels or the response to food or exercise.

In contrast, the graphic display from a CGM sensor is more like a movie, telling a story as it unfolds. Uninterrupted data provide valuable feedback to patients about the effects of diet, physical activity, stress, or pain on their glucose levels. And for the first time, it’s easy to determine the proportion of time the patient spends in or out of the target glucose range.

Incorporating new technology into your practice may seem like a burden, but the reward is better information that leads to better management of diabetes. If you’re new to glucose sensors, many excellent resources are available to learn how to use them.

I recommend starting with a website called diabeteswise.org, which has both a patient-facing and clinician-facing version. This unbranded site serves as a kind of Consumer Reports for diabetes technology, allowing both patients and professionals to compare and contrast currently available CGM devices.

DiabetesWisePro  has information ranging from CGM device fundamentals and best practices to CGM prescribing and reimbursement.

Clinical Diabetes also provides multiple tools to help incorporate these devices into primary care clinical practice, including:

• Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Optimizing Diabetes Care (CME course).

• Diabetes Technology in Primary Care.

The next article in this series will cover two types of CGMs used in primary care: professional and personal devices.

Dr. Shubrook is a professor in the department of primary care, Touro University California College of Osteopathic Medicine, Vallejo, Calif., and director of diabetes services, Solano County Family Health Services, Fairfield, Calif. He disclosed ties with Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Nevro, and Novo Nordisk.

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

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a recent meta-analysis.

The review compared 2 years of data from during the pandemic to data from a prepandemic period, and showed a higher incidence of type 1 diabetes in the first year (incidence rate ratio, 1.14) and second year (IRR, 1.27) of the pandemic. The investigators also found an increase in the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (IRR, 1.26).

The meta-analysis included 17 studies of 38,149 children and adolescents with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. “Putting them all together really gave us more confidence to say this is something that we think is real,” study author Rayzel Shulman, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Increased incidence

The investigators reviewed 42 studies, including 17 that examined rates of type 1 diabetes incidence, 10 on type 2 diabetes, and 15 on DKA. The included studies all had a minimum observation period of 12 months during the pandemic and at least 12 months before it. Relative to the prepandemic period, the meta-analysis found higher rates of type 1 diabetes and DKA during the pandemic.

The review was conducted in response to questions about the methodology of study results suggesting an association between the COVID-19 pandemic and the incidence of diabetes, according to Dr. Shulman.

Although this is not the first review of studies on the connection between diabetes and COVID-19, it adds to the literature by extending the study period to 2 years of the pandemic. The longer time frame helps address potential seasonal differences in incidence and increases confidence in the results.

The investigators also sought to look at the incidence of type 2 diabetes in children but found few studies that met the study criteria. Although some studies reported rates of type 2 diabetes, most lacked information about the population, specifically, the “denominator” needed for findings regarding any association with the COVID-19 pandemic.

With greater confidence in the increased incidence of type 1 diabetes, Dr. Shulman emphasized a need to ensure sufficient resources to care for newly diagnosed patients, including education and support for families.

The study’s secondary outcome was the change in incidence rate of DKA among children with newly diagnosed diabetes. Data reported in 15 studies showed a 26% increase in DKA incidence during the first year of the pandemic.

“DKA is a serious and life-threatening condition that is preventable,” said Dr. Shulman. Symptoms of type 1 diabetes include increased thirst and urination, weight loss, and fatigue. If parents or caregivers notice these signs, Dr. Shulman advises them to seek care immediately to reduce the risk of DKA.
 

Possible mechanisms

In a comment, Elizabeth Sellers, MD, an endocrinologist at the Children’s Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Manitoba, both in Winnipeg, said the study’s findings on DKA are an important reminder to be attentive to symptoms of diabetes. Dr. Sellers did not participate in the meta-analysis.

One possible explanation for the increase is a hesitancy to seek care among parents and caregivers during the pandemic. “I think we use that information and turn it into a positive,” said Dr. Sellers, by increasing recognition of the symptoms. Dr. Sellers, whose research is included in the review, is part of an initiative by the Canadian Pediatric Endocrine Group to increase diabetes awareness.

The study provides important findings, particularly the second-year results, but is not designed to answer why there has been an increase in diabetes incidence, said Dr. Sellers. “You have to identify the problem first and then you can go back and look at mechanisms.”

The meta-analysis did not seek to draw conclusions about the underlying mechanisms that would explain changes in diabetes incidence but rather indicates a need for further studies to seek a better understanding of the connection. Several theories may be considered, wrote Clemens Kamrath, MD, of the Centre of Child and Adolescent Medicine at Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany, and colleagues in an accompanying editorial.

Studies have suggested a direct effect of infections such as COVID-19, whereby the virus damages insulin-producing beta cells. However, the commentary notes these studies do not account for asymptomatic infections among children.

Dr. Kamrath and colleagues also considered the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which they indicate may be more likely than direct effects. These indirect effects include autoimmunity and environmental changes that occurred during the pandemic.

Researchers will need to continue monitoring the data to see if the trend persists and continue working to determine the mechanisms, said Dr. Schulman. “I don’t think this is the end of the story.”

The study was supported in part by grant funding from the department of pediatrics at The Hospital for Sick Children. Dr. Shulman, Dr. Sellers, and Dr. Kamrath reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults with type 2 diabetes, the presence of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality and both macro- and microvascular complications, as well as increased mortality, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

PRISm occurs in approximately 10% of the general population and has been identified as a predictor of adverse health outcomes including cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality, Guochen Li, MD, of the Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.

“A growing number of studies have demonstrated that impaired lung function and type 2 diabetes could trigger shared pathophysiological injuries, such as microangiopathy and chronic inflammation,” they said, but the potential role of PRISm as an early predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been fully examined.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 20,047 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of adults aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The main exposure was lung function based on spirometry. PRISm was defined as predicted forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) less than 80%, with an FEV1/ forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of at least 0.70. Individuals with normal spirometry (defined as predicted FEV1 ≥ 80% with an FEV1/FVC ratio ≥ 0.70) served as controls.

The primary outcomes were major complications of type 2 diabetes including macrovascular events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary heart disease [CHD], ischemic stroke, and any type of stroke), microvascular events (diabetic retinopathy and diabetic kidney disease) and mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory).

Overall, 16.9% of study participants (3385 patients) had obstructive spirometry and 22.6% (4521 patients) had PRISm. Compared with individuals with normal spirometry, those with PRISm were more likely to be current smokers, obese, and living in economically disadvantaged areas. Individuals with PRISm also were significantly more likely to be long-term patients with diabetes who were taking glucose-lowering or lipid-lowering drugs (P < .001 for all).

The median follow-up for each of the type 2 diabetes complications and mortality was approximately 12 years. Over this time, 5.0% of patients developed incident MI, 1.3% developed unstable angina, 15.6% had CHD, 3.5% had an ischemic stroke, and 4.7% had any type of stroke. As for microvascular events, 7.8% developed diabetic retinopathy and 6.7% developed diabetic kidney disease. A total of 2588 patients died during the study period (15.1%), including 544 from cardiovascular disease and 319 from respiratory disease.

PRISm was significantly associated with increased risk of each of the complications and mortality types. These associations persisted after adjusting for lifestyle and other factors. The fully adjusted hazard ratios for PRISm versus normal spirometry were 1.23 for MI, 1.23 for unstable angina, 1.21 for CHD, 1.38 for ischemic stroke, 1.41 for any type of stroke, 1.31 for diabetic retinopathy, and 1.38 for diabetic kidney disease. Adjusted HRs for mortality were 1.34, 1.60, and 1.56 for all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, respectively.

The researchers also found that adding PRISm to an office-based risk score significantly improved the risk classification and predictive power for type 2 diabetes complications with the exception of unstable angina and mortality. They found little evidence for an association with sex, smoking, or PRISm duration and any mortality types. However, in subgroup analyses by age, sex, and duration of diabetes, PRISm remained associated with increased risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications, as well as mortality.

Potential mechanisms for the association between PRISm and diabetes complications include the role of insulin resistance in the exacerbation of lung damage in patients with type 2 diabetes, the increased rate of supplemental oxygen use among individuals with PRISm, and the increased prevalence of pulmonary artery enlargement in the PRISm subjects, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the prospective design, the homogeneous population of individuals primarily of British or Irish ancestry, and the exclusion of diabetic neuropathy from the analysis, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large cohort, use of professional spirometry, and relatively long follow-up. “The findings underscore the relevance of PRISm for prognostic classification in type 2 diabetes and its potential for optimizing prevention strategies in this condition,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Among adults with type 2 diabetes, the presence of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality and both macro- and microvascular complications, as well as increased mortality, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

PRISm occurs in approximately 10% of the general population and has been identified as a predictor of adverse health outcomes including cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality, Guochen Li, MD, of the Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.

“A growing number of studies have demonstrated that impaired lung function and type 2 diabetes could trigger shared pathophysiological injuries, such as microangiopathy and chronic inflammation,” they said, but the potential role of PRISm as an early predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been fully examined.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 20,047 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of adults aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The main exposure was lung function based on spirometry. PRISm was defined as predicted forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) less than 80%, with an FEV1/ forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of at least 0.70. Individuals with normal spirometry (defined as predicted FEV1 ≥ 80% with an FEV1/FVC ratio ≥ 0.70) served as controls.

The primary outcomes were major complications of type 2 diabetes including macrovascular events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary heart disease [CHD], ischemic stroke, and any type of stroke), microvascular events (diabetic retinopathy and diabetic kidney disease) and mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory).

Overall, 16.9% of study participants (3385 patients) had obstructive spirometry and 22.6% (4521 patients) had PRISm. Compared with individuals with normal spirometry, those with PRISm were more likely to be current smokers, obese, and living in economically disadvantaged areas. Individuals with PRISm also were significantly more likely to be long-term patients with diabetes who were taking glucose-lowering or lipid-lowering drugs (P < .001 for all).

The median follow-up for each of the type 2 diabetes complications and mortality was approximately 12 years. Over this time, 5.0% of patients developed incident MI, 1.3% developed unstable angina, 15.6% had CHD, 3.5% had an ischemic stroke, and 4.7% had any type of stroke. As for microvascular events, 7.8% developed diabetic retinopathy and 6.7% developed diabetic kidney disease. A total of 2588 patients died during the study period (15.1%), including 544 from cardiovascular disease and 319 from respiratory disease.

PRISm was significantly associated with increased risk of each of the complications and mortality types. These associations persisted after adjusting for lifestyle and other factors. The fully adjusted hazard ratios for PRISm versus normal spirometry were 1.23 for MI, 1.23 for unstable angina, 1.21 for CHD, 1.38 for ischemic stroke, 1.41 for any type of stroke, 1.31 for diabetic retinopathy, and 1.38 for diabetic kidney disease. Adjusted HRs for mortality were 1.34, 1.60, and 1.56 for all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, respectively.

The researchers also found that adding PRISm to an office-based risk score significantly improved the risk classification and predictive power for type 2 diabetes complications with the exception of unstable angina and mortality. They found little evidence for an association with sex, smoking, or PRISm duration and any mortality types. However, in subgroup analyses by age, sex, and duration of diabetes, PRISm remained associated with increased risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications, as well as mortality.

Potential mechanisms for the association between PRISm and diabetes complications include the role of insulin resistance in the exacerbation of lung damage in patients with type 2 diabetes, the increased rate of supplemental oxygen use among individuals with PRISm, and the increased prevalence of pulmonary artery enlargement in the PRISm subjects, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the prospective design, the homogeneous population of individuals primarily of British or Irish ancestry, and the exclusion of diabetic neuropathy from the analysis, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large cohort, use of professional spirometry, and relatively long follow-up. “The findings underscore the relevance of PRISm for prognostic classification in type 2 diabetes and its potential for optimizing prevention strategies in this condition,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Among adults with type 2 diabetes, the presence of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality and both macro- and microvascular complications, as well as increased mortality, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

PRISm occurs in approximately 10% of the general population and has been identified as a predictor of adverse health outcomes including cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality, Guochen Li, MD, of the Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.

“A growing number of studies have demonstrated that impaired lung function and type 2 diabetes could trigger shared pathophysiological injuries, such as microangiopathy and chronic inflammation,” they said, but the potential role of PRISm as an early predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been fully examined.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 20,047 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of adults aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The main exposure was lung function based on spirometry. PRISm was defined as predicted forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) less than 80%, with an FEV1/ forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of at least 0.70. Individuals with normal spirometry (defined as predicted FEV1 ≥ 80% with an FEV1/FVC ratio ≥ 0.70) served as controls.

The primary outcomes were major complications of type 2 diabetes including macrovascular events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary heart disease [CHD], ischemic stroke, and any type of stroke), microvascular events (diabetic retinopathy and diabetic kidney disease) and mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory).

Overall, 16.9% of study participants (3385 patients) had obstructive spirometry and 22.6% (4521 patients) had PRISm. Compared with individuals with normal spirometry, those with PRISm were more likely to be current smokers, obese, and living in economically disadvantaged areas. Individuals with PRISm also were significantly more likely to be long-term patients with diabetes who were taking glucose-lowering or lipid-lowering drugs (P < .001 for all).

The median follow-up for each of the type 2 diabetes complications and mortality was approximately 12 years. Over this time, 5.0% of patients developed incident MI, 1.3% developed unstable angina, 15.6% had CHD, 3.5% had an ischemic stroke, and 4.7% had any type of stroke. As for microvascular events, 7.8% developed diabetic retinopathy and 6.7% developed diabetic kidney disease. A total of 2588 patients died during the study period (15.1%), including 544 from cardiovascular disease and 319 from respiratory disease.

PRISm was significantly associated with increased risk of each of the complications and mortality types. These associations persisted after adjusting for lifestyle and other factors. The fully adjusted hazard ratios for PRISm versus normal spirometry were 1.23 for MI, 1.23 for unstable angina, 1.21 for CHD, 1.38 for ischemic stroke, 1.41 for any type of stroke, 1.31 for diabetic retinopathy, and 1.38 for diabetic kidney disease. Adjusted HRs for mortality were 1.34, 1.60, and 1.56 for all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, respectively.

The researchers also found that adding PRISm to an office-based risk score significantly improved the risk classification and predictive power for type 2 diabetes complications with the exception of unstable angina and mortality. They found little evidence for an association with sex, smoking, or PRISm duration and any mortality types. However, in subgroup analyses by age, sex, and duration of diabetes, PRISm remained associated with increased risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications, as well as mortality.

Potential mechanisms for the association between PRISm and diabetes complications include the role of insulin resistance in the exacerbation of lung damage in patients with type 2 diabetes, the increased rate of supplemental oxygen use among individuals with PRISm, and the increased prevalence of pulmonary artery enlargement in the PRISm subjects, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the prospective design, the homogeneous population of individuals primarily of British or Irish ancestry, and the exclusion of diabetic neuropathy from the analysis, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large cohort, use of professional spirometry, and relatively long follow-up. “The findings underscore the relevance of PRISm for prognostic classification in type 2 diabetes and its potential for optimizing prevention strategies in this condition,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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