Endocrinology

It is time to broaden the definition of osteoporosis used in clinical guidelines, states an article published in Age and Ageing, the official journal of the British Geriatrics Society.

The authors recommend that the World Health Organization and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry consider a broader definition of osteoporosis, which encompasses clinical diagnosis, providing clear guidance on communicating bone mineral density (BMD) results to patients.

The WHO definition of osteoporosis, which is endorsed as a diagnostic threshold in current U.K. and European guidance, still relies purely on BMD testing (T score of −2.5 SD or more). The authors say this definition no longer relates to the population for whom osteoporosis drugs are recommended.

In the past 15 years, they write, there has been a change in the field of osteoporosis, namely to base osteoporosis management not just on absolute values of BMD but also on broader consideration of future fracture risk. This change has been underpinned by observations that the majority of patients with a fragility fracture do not have osteoporotic BMD.

Coauthor Zoe Paskins, MBChB, a senior lecturer at Keele (England) University and clinical lead for the osteoporosis service in North Staffordshire, argues that many people with osteoporosis do not receive the treatment they need because of inconsistencies in how the condition is diagnosed around the world, resulting in confusion for both clinicians and patients.

“We think it is time for the WHO to reconsider the definition of osteoporosis, which is now more than 25 years old. A new definition is needed to acknowledge that it is possible, in some circumstances, to give a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis in those who have osteoporotic fractures. In our view, this would help address current confusion and improve uptake of treatments,” she said.

This article first appeared on Univadis.

It is time to broaden the definition of osteoporosis used in clinical guidelines, states an article published in Age and Ageing, the official journal of the British Geriatrics Society.

The authors recommend that the World Health Organization and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry consider a broader definition of osteoporosis, which encompasses clinical diagnosis, providing clear guidance on communicating bone mineral density (BMD) results to patients.

The WHO definition of osteoporosis, which is endorsed as a diagnostic threshold in current U.K. and European guidance, still relies purely on BMD testing (T score of −2.5 SD or more). The authors say this definition no longer relates to the population for whom osteoporosis drugs are recommended.

In the past 15 years, they write, there has been a change in the field of osteoporosis, namely to base osteoporosis management not just on absolute values of BMD but also on broader consideration of future fracture risk. This change has been underpinned by observations that the majority of patients with a fragility fracture do not have osteoporotic BMD.

Coauthor Zoe Paskins, MBChB, a senior lecturer at Keele (England) University and clinical lead for the osteoporosis service in North Staffordshire, argues that many people with osteoporosis do not receive the treatment they need because of inconsistencies in how the condition is diagnosed around the world, resulting in confusion for both clinicians and patients.

“We think it is time for the WHO to reconsider the definition of osteoporosis, which is now more than 25 years old. A new definition is needed to acknowledge that it is possible, in some circumstances, to give a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis in those who have osteoporotic fractures. In our view, this would help address current confusion and improve uptake of treatments,” she said.

This article first appeared on Univadis.

It is time to broaden the definition of osteoporosis used in clinical guidelines, states an article published in Age and Ageing, the official journal of the British Geriatrics Society.

The authors recommend that the World Health Organization and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry consider a broader definition of osteoporosis, which encompasses clinical diagnosis, providing clear guidance on communicating bone mineral density (BMD) results to patients.

The WHO definition of osteoporosis, which is endorsed as a diagnostic threshold in current U.K. and European guidance, still relies purely on BMD testing (T score of −2.5 SD or more). The authors say this definition no longer relates to the population for whom osteoporosis drugs are recommended.

In the past 15 years, they write, there has been a change in the field of osteoporosis, namely to base osteoporosis management not just on absolute values of BMD but also on broader consideration of future fracture risk. This change has been underpinned by observations that the majority of patients with a fragility fracture do not have osteoporotic BMD.

Coauthor Zoe Paskins, MBChB, a senior lecturer at Keele (England) University and clinical lead for the osteoporosis service in North Staffordshire, argues that many people with osteoporosis do not receive the treatment they need because of inconsistencies in how the condition is diagnosed around the world, resulting in confusion for both clinicians and patients.

“We think it is time for the WHO to reconsider the definition of osteoporosis, which is now more than 25 years old. A new definition is needed to acknowledge that it is possible, in some circumstances, to give a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis in those who have osteoporotic fractures. In our view, this would help address current confusion and improve uptake of treatments,” she said.

This article first appeared on Univadis.

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

A high-intensity exercise program, already shown effective in improving bone density and performance in women, is also effective in older men with low bone density, according to the LIFTMOR-M study, published in Bone. The protocol incorporates barbell-based weightlifting and impact training involving jumping chin-ups.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“When you’ve got a condition primarily in one of the sexes, the other sex often gets ignored, and that’s absolute the case with osteoporosis,” said lead author Belinda Beck, PhD, a professor at Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, in an interview.

In older adults with low bone density, when it comes to building bone and reducing fracture, a review of the literature suggests that exercise doesn’t work. That’s not really true though, according to Dr. Beck. An unpublished analysis of studies of high-intensity exercise only at her institution shows promise. “It looks like exercise doesn’t work. It’s not that, it’s that the wrong kind of exercise doesn’t work,” she stressed.

The original LIFTMOR trial, in women, was inspired by a collaboration with Lisa Weis, an Olympic weightlifter who specialized in training older women, who subsequently showed improvements on bone scans. “That’s what jump-started it, because just like every other scientist, I would have been too scared to do this kind of loading in this fragile population, and that’s the reason why people haven’t been doing it. They don’t want to break people,” said Dr. Beck.

The investigators “cherry-picked some of those exercises and tested them in the LIFTMOR trial. I was nervous about the study because the weights we were lifting were much heavier than most people had applied for people with osteoporosis. The risk was, we would cause the fractures we were trying to prevent,” said Dr. Beck. Her team tested a high-intensity resistance and impact (HiRIT) protocol in postmenopausal women with low bone mass (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Mar;34[3]:572. Controls underwent a home-based, low-intensity exercise program. They found improvements in bone density and functional performance, compared with controls.

“The exercise was effective and safe for this population if practiced with proper technique under close supervision,” said Dr. Beck, but she emphasized that the exercises must be led by experienced coaches because of the potential for injury.

The investigators then looked at men. “There are still one in five men over 50 who are going to fracture,” Dr. Beck said.

Her team launched LIFTMOR-M, which enrolled 93 men (mean age, 67.1 years) with a lower than average proximal femur areal bone mineral density. Of them, 34 were randomized to HiRIT, 33 to supervised machine-based isometric axial compression (IAC) exercise training, and 26 were designated as controls and self-selected to usual activities.

The intervention included 8 months of twice-weekly, supervised, 30-minute HiRIT sessions, which included five sets of five repetitions, using more than 85% the weight of the single repetition maximum. The routine included the deadlift, squat, and overhead press. The impact component included five sets of five repetitions of jumping chin-ups followed by a firm, flat-footed landing.

After 8 months, there was no difference in compliance between the two intervention groups. Those in the HiRIT group had improved medial femoral neck cortical thickness, compared with controls (5.6% vs. –0.1%; P = .028) and IAC (5.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .044). Those in the HiRIT group maintained distal tibia trabecular area, while the control group experienced a loss (0.2% vs. –1.6%; P = .013). The IAC group did not show any improvement in bone strength in any of the sites examined, though some findings suggest it may counteract age-related loss in bone strength indices in the distal tibia and radius.

The program requires a fluid movement that maintains a neutral spine throughout. Dr. Beck has developed the Onero program (theboneclinic.com.au/onero/) based on the routine, and licenses it to physical therapists and exercise physiologists.

The study was funded by the Australian Research Foundation and the Australian Government Research Training Program. Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic, which sells licenses to the Onero program based on the exercise program used in the study.

SOURCE: Beck B et al. Bone. 2020 April 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115362.

A high-intensity exercise program, already shown effective in improving bone density and performance in women, is also effective in older men with low bone density, according to the LIFTMOR-M study, published in Bone. The protocol incorporates barbell-based weightlifting and impact training involving jumping chin-ups.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“When you’ve got a condition primarily in one of the sexes, the other sex often gets ignored, and that’s absolute the case with osteoporosis,” said lead author Belinda Beck, PhD, a professor at Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, in an interview.

In older adults with low bone density, when it comes to building bone and reducing fracture, a review of the literature suggests that exercise doesn’t work. That’s not really true though, according to Dr. Beck. An unpublished analysis of studies of high-intensity exercise only at her institution shows promise. “It looks like exercise doesn’t work. It’s not that, it’s that the wrong kind of exercise doesn’t work,” she stressed.

The original LIFTMOR trial, in women, was inspired by a collaboration with Lisa Weis, an Olympic weightlifter who specialized in training older women, who subsequently showed improvements on bone scans. “That’s what jump-started it, because just like every other scientist, I would have been too scared to do this kind of loading in this fragile population, and that’s the reason why people haven’t been doing it. They don’t want to break people,” said Dr. Beck.

The investigators “cherry-picked some of those exercises and tested them in the LIFTMOR trial. I was nervous about the study because the weights we were lifting were much heavier than most people had applied for people with osteoporosis. The risk was, we would cause the fractures we were trying to prevent,” said Dr. Beck. Her team tested a high-intensity resistance and impact (HiRIT) protocol in postmenopausal women with low bone mass (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Mar;34[3]:572. Controls underwent a home-based, low-intensity exercise program. They found improvements in bone density and functional performance, compared with controls.

“The exercise was effective and safe for this population if practiced with proper technique under close supervision,” said Dr. Beck, but she emphasized that the exercises must be led by experienced coaches because of the potential for injury.

The investigators then looked at men. “There are still one in five men over 50 who are going to fracture,” Dr. Beck said.

Her team launched LIFTMOR-M, which enrolled 93 men (mean age, 67.1 years) with a lower than average proximal femur areal bone mineral density. Of them, 34 were randomized to HiRIT, 33 to supervised machine-based isometric axial compression (IAC) exercise training, and 26 were designated as controls and self-selected to usual activities.

The intervention included 8 months of twice-weekly, supervised, 30-minute HiRIT sessions, which included five sets of five repetitions, using more than 85% the weight of the single repetition maximum. The routine included the deadlift, squat, and overhead press. The impact component included five sets of five repetitions of jumping chin-ups followed by a firm, flat-footed landing.

After 8 months, there was no difference in compliance between the two intervention groups. Those in the HiRIT group had improved medial femoral neck cortical thickness, compared with controls (5.6% vs. –0.1%; P = .028) and IAC (5.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .044). Those in the HiRIT group maintained distal tibia trabecular area, while the control group experienced a loss (0.2% vs. –1.6%; P = .013). The IAC group did not show any improvement in bone strength in any of the sites examined, though some findings suggest it may counteract age-related loss in bone strength indices in the distal tibia and radius.

The program requires a fluid movement that maintains a neutral spine throughout. Dr. Beck has developed the Onero program (theboneclinic.com.au/onero/) based on the routine, and licenses it to physical therapists and exercise physiologists.

The study was funded by the Australian Research Foundation and the Australian Government Research Training Program. Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic, which sells licenses to the Onero program based on the exercise program used in the study.

SOURCE: Beck B et al. Bone. 2020 April 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115362.

A high-intensity exercise program, already shown effective in improving bone density and performance in women, is also effective in older men with low bone density, according to the LIFTMOR-M study, published in Bone. The protocol incorporates barbell-based weightlifting and impact training involving jumping chin-ups.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“When you’ve got a condition primarily in one of the sexes, the other sex often gets ignored, and that’s absolute the case with osteoporosis,” said lead author Belinda Beck, PhD, a professor at Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, in an interview.

In older adults with low bone density, when it comes to building bone and reducing fracture, a review of the literature suggests that exercise doesn’t work. That’s not really true though, according to Dr. Beck. An unpublished analysis of studies of high-intensity exercise only at her institution shows promise. “It looks like exercise doesn’t work. It’s not that, it’s that the wrong kind of exercise doesn’t work,” she stressed.

The original LIFTMOR trial, in women, was inspired by a collaboration with Lisa Weis, an Olympic weightlifter who specialized in training older women, who subsequently showed improvements on bone scans. “That’s what jump-started it, because just like every other scientist, I would have been too scared to do this kind of loading in this fragile population, and that’s the reason why people haven’t been doing it. They don’t want to break people,” said Dr. Beck.

The investigators “cherry-picked some of those exercises and tested them in the LIFTMOR trial. I was nervous about the study because the weights we were lifting were much heavier than most people had applied for people with osteoporosis. The risk was, we would cause the fractures we were trying to prevent,” said Dr. Beck. Her team tested a high-intensity resistance and impact (HiRIT) protocol in postmenopausal women with low bone mass (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Mar;34[3]:572. Controls underwent a home-based, low-intensity exercise program. They found improvements in bone density and functional performance, compared with controls.

“The exercise was effective and safe for this population if practiced with proper technique under close supervision,” said Dr. Beck, but she emphasized that the exercises must be led by experienced coaches because of the potential for injury.

The investigators then looked at men. “There are still one in five men over 50 who are going to fracture,” Dr. Beck said.

Her team launched LIFTMOR-M, which enrolled 93 men (mean age, 67.1 years) with a lower than average proximal femur areal bone mineral density. Of them, 34 were randomized to HiRIT, 33 to supervised machine-based isometric axial compression (IAC) exercise training, and 26 were designated as controls and self-selected to usual activities.

The intervention included 8 months of twice-weekly, supervised, 30-minute HiRIT sessions, which included five sets of five repetitions, using more than 85% the weight of the single repetition maximum. The routine included the deadlift, squat, and overhead press. The impact component included five sets of five repetitions of jumping chin-ups followed by a firm, flat-footed landing.

After 8 months, there was no difference in compliance between the two intervention groups. Those in the HiRIT group had improved medial femoral neck cortical thickness, compared with controls (5.6% vs. –0.1%; P = .028) and IAC (5.6% vs. 0.7%; P = .044). Those in the HiRIT group maintained distal tibia trabecular area, while the control group experienced a loss (0.2% vs. –1.6%; P = .013). The IAC group did not show any improvement in bone strength in any of the sites examined, though some findings suggest it may counteract age-related loss in bone strength indices in the distal tibia and radius.

The program requires a fluid movement that maintains a neutral spine throughout. Dr. Beck has developed the Onero program (theboneclinic.com.au/onero/) based on the routine, and licenses it to physical therapists and exercise physiologists.

The study was funded by the Australian Research Foundation and the Australian Government Research Training Program. Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic, which sells licenses to the Onero program based on the exercise program used in the study.

SOURCE: Beck B et al. Bone. 2020 April 11. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115362.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

Five leading bone health organizations have gotten together to provide new recommendations for managing patients with osteoporosis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The joint guidance – released by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, and the National Osteoporosis Foundation – offered both general and specific recommendations for patients whose osteoporosis treatment plan is either continuing or has been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Among the general recommendations are to initiate oral bisphosphonate therapy over either the telephone or through a video visit, with no delays for patients at high risk of fracture. They also noted that, as elective procedures, bone mineral density examinations may need to be postponed.

For patients already on osteoporosis medications – such as oral and IV bisphosphonates, denosumab, estrogen, raloxifene, teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab – they recommend continuing treatment whenever possible. “There is no evidence that any osteoporosis therapy increases the risk or severity of COVID-19 infection or alters the disease course,” they wrote. They did add, however, that COVID-19 may increase the risk of hypercoagulable complications and so caution should be exercised when treating patients with estrogen or raloxifene.

Separately, in a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa254), Ruban Dhaliwal, MD, MPH, of the State University of New York, Syracuse, and coauthors concur in regard to raloxifene. They wrote that, because of the increased risk of thromboembolic events related to COVID-19, “it is best to discontinue raloxifene, which is also associated with such risk.”

The joint statement recognizes current social distancing policies and therefore recommends avoiding standard pretreatment labs prior to IV bisphosphonate and/or denosumab administration if previous labs were normal and the patient’s recent health has been deemed “stable.” Lab evaluation is recommended, however, for patients with fluctuating renal function and for those at higher risk of developing hypocalcemia.

The statement also provides potential alternative methods for delivering parenteral osteoporosis treatments, including off-site clinics, home delivery and administration, self-injection of denosumab and/or romosozumab, and drive-through administration of denosumab and/or romosozumab. They acknowledged the complications surrounding each alternative, including residents of “socioeconomically challenged communities” being unable to reach clinics if public transportation is not available and the “important medicolegal issues” to consider around self-injection.

For all patients whose treatments have been disrupted, the authors recommend frequent reevaluation “with the goal to resume the original osteoporosis treatment plan once circumstances allow.” As for specific recommendations, patients on denosumab who will not be treatable within 7 months of their previous injection should be transitioned to oral bisphosphonate if at all possible. For patients with underlying gastrointestinal disorders, they recommend monthly ibandronate or weekly/monthly risedronate; for patients with chronic renal insufficiency, they recommend an off-label regimen of lower dose oral bisphosphonate.

For patients on teriparatide or abaloparatide who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they recommend a delay in treatment. If that delay goes beyond several months, they recommend a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. For patients on romosozumab who will be unable to receive continued treatment, they also recommend a delay in treatment and a temporary transition to oral bisphosphonate. Finally, they expressed confidence that patients on IV bisphosphonates will not be harmed by treatment delays, even those of several months.

“I think we could fall into a trap during this era of the pandemic and fail to address patients’ underlying chronic conditions, even though those comorbidities will end up greatly affecting their overall health,” said incoming ASBMR president Suzanne Jan de Beur, MD, of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “As we continue to care for our patients, we need to keep chronic conditions like osteoporosis on the radar screen and not stop diagnosing people at risk or those who present with fractures. Even when we can’t perform full screening tests due to distancing policies, we need to be vigilant for those patients who need treatment and administer the treatments we have available as needed.”

The statement’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their recommendations, noting that “there is a paucity of data to provide clear guidance” and as such they were “based primarily on expert opinion.”

The authors from the five organizations did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved leuprolide acetate (Fensolvi) for treating children aged 2 years and older with central precocious puberty.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Approval was based on results from a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study of 64 children with central precocious puberty, a rare disease described as onset of puberty before age 8 years in girls and before age 9 in boys. The primary study endpoint was achieved, with 87% of children achieving a serum luteinizing-hormone concentration of less than 4 IU/L within 6 months post injection. Sex hormones were suppressed to prepubertal levels, and clinical signs of puberty were halted or reversed.

Adverse events during the study were mostly mild or moderate; none led to withdrawal from the study. The most common adverse events reported were injection-site pain (31%), nasopharyngitis (22%), and fever (17%).

“Children with CPP require treatment for several years and missing treatment or stopping treatment too soon may lead to significant short stature and misalignment between chronological age and physical and emotional development. Fensolvi offers treating physicians and their patients with CPP a safe and effective treatment option that is administered twice a year with a small injection volume that has the potential to improve compliance,” Karen Klein, MD, of Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, said in the press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved leuprolide acetate (Fensolvi) for treating children aged 2 years and older with central precocious puberty.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Approval was based on results from a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study of 64 children with central precocious puberty, a rare disease described as onset of puberty before age 8 years in girls and before age 9 in boys. The primary study endpoint was achieved, with 87% of children achieving a serum luteinizing-hormone concentration of less than 4 IU/L within 6 months post injection. Sex hormones were suppressed to prepubertal levels, and clinical signs of puberty were halted or reversed.

Adverse events during the study were mostly mild or moderate; none led to withdrawal from the study. The most common adverse events reported were injection-site pain (31%), nasopharyngitis (22%), and fever (17%).

“Children with CPP require treatment for several years and missing treatment or stopping treatment too soon may lead to significant short stature and misalignment between chronological age and physical and emotional development. Fensolvi offers treating physicians and their patients with CPP a safe and effective treatment option that is administered twice a year with a small injection volume that has the potential to improve compliance,” Karen Klein, MD, of Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, said in the press release.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved leuprolide acetate (Fensolvi) for treating children aged 2 years and older with central precocious puberty.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Approval was based on results from a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 3 study of 64 children with central precocious puberty, a rare disease described as onset of puberty before age 8 years in girls and before age 9 in boys. The primary study endpoint was achieved, with 87% of children achieving a serum luteinizing-hormone concentration of less than 4 IU/L within 6 months post injection. Sex hormones were suppressed to prepubertal levels, and clinical signs of puberty were halted or reversed.

Adverse events during the study were mostly mild or moderate; none led to withdrawal from the study. The most common adverse events reported were injection-site pain (31%), nasopharyngitis (22%), and fever (17%).

“Children with CPP require treatment for several years and missing treatment or stopping treatment too soon may lead to significant short stature and misalignment between chronological age and physical and emotional development. Fensolvi offers treating physicians and their patients with CPP a safe and effective treatment option that is administered twice a year with a small injection volume that has the potential to improve compliance,” Karen Klein, MD, of Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, said in the press release.

[email protected]

A new analysis of the large, randomized TRUST trial shows that L-thyroxine does not improve pronounced symptoms in older people with subclinical hypothyroidism.

The original trial established that the synthetic hormone did not improve symptoms in the overall trial population, a finding that called into question the routine prescribing of thyroid medication for this patient group.

But questions lingered as to whether patients with a higher burden of symptoms might still benefit from treatment with L-thyroxine.

For their research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Maria de Montmollin, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland), looked at results for 638 subjects randomized to L-thyroxine treatment (50 mcg daily for most patients) or placebo and followed for at least 1 year in the Thyroid Hormone Therapy for Older Adults With Subclinical Hypothyroidism (TRUST) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2534-2544). All were 65 years or older and met the criteria for subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as persistent elevated TSH levels (4.60-19.99 mIU/L) in combination with a normal free-thyroxine level.

Dr. de Montmollin and her colleagues identified 132 participants with high hypothyroid symptom burden at baseline and 133 patients with high scores for tiredness, using the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. Cutoffs were a baseline symptoms score of higher than 30 (on a 1-100 scale), or a tiredness score of over 40.

At 1 year, researchers saw no statistically significant improvements in either measure for the L-thyroxine treated patients, compared with placebo.

Among the patients with high symptom burden, those on L-thyroxine saw a score improvement of –12.3 points, compared with –10.4 for those on placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of –2.0 (95% confidence interval, –5.5 to 1.5; P = 0.27). Tiredness scores also improved similarly, dropping 8.9 points for L-thyroxine–treated patients, compared with –10.9 for those receiving placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of 0.0 (95% CI, –4.1 to 4.0; P = 0.99).

Dr. de Montmollin and colleagues also noted no significant between-group differences in two secondary measures they looked at in the study: patient self-reported quality of life and handgrip strength, an objective measure of weakness.

The results “do not support the hypothesis that the subgroup of adults with SCH [subclinical hypothyroidism] and high symptom burden before treatment benefit from L-thyroxine therapy,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. “This may be because of regression to the mean, the natural history of SCH, or the placebo effect and may explain why many persons with symptomatic SCH and their treating physicians are convinced that L-thyroxine is beneficial,” they added.

In an interview, Dr. de Montmollin commented that treating physicians “should reconsider prescribing or offering L-thyroxine to older adults with SCH, even those with consistent symptoms, because there is no clear evidence for its benefit in treating SCH to date and a risk of harm related to overtreatment is still possible. In addition, it is associated with unnecessary costs for the patient and for the health system.”

The investigators mentioned several limitations to their study, including its post hoc design and a small sample size. Additionally, they wrote, the findings “cannot exclude the possibility that a rare subgroup with greater symptom burden would benefit from L-thyroxine therapy” or that more aggressive treatment leading to lower TSH levels would confer benefit.

The study was sponsored by the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, while the TRUST trial was sponsored by the European Union and with medication donated by Merck. Dr. de Montmollin and her coauthors disclosed no financial ties to industry.

SOURCE: De Montmollin et al. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 5. doi: 10.7326/M19-3193.

A new analysis of the large, randomized TRUST trial shows that L-thyroxine does not improve pronounced symptoms in older people with subclinical hypothyroidism.

The original trial established that the synthetic hormone did not improve symptoms in the overall trial population, a finding that called into question the routine prescribing of thyroid medication for this patient group.

But questions lingered as to whether patients with a higher burden of symptoms might still benefit from treatment with L-thyroxine.

For their research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Maria de Montmollin, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland), looked at results for 638 subjects randomized to L-thyroxine treatment (50 mcg daily for most patients) or placebo and followed for at least 1 year in the Thyroid Hormone Therapy for Older Adults With Subclinical Hypothyroidism (TRUST) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2534-2544). All were 65 years or older and met the criteria for subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as persistent elevated TSH levels (4.60-19.99 mIU/L) in combination with a normal free-thyroxine level.

Dr. de Montmollin and her colleagues identified 132 participants with high hypothyroid symptom burden at baseline and 133 patients with high scores for tiredness, using the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. Cutoffs were a baseline symptoms score of higher than 30 (on a 1-100 scale), or a tiredness score of over 40.

At 1 year, researchers saw no statistically significant improvements in either measure for the L-thyroxine treated patients, compared with placebo.

Among the patients with high symptom burden, those on L-thyroxine saw a score improvement of –12.3 points, compared with –10.4 for those on placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of –2.0 (95% confidence interval, –5.5 to 1.5; P = 0.27). Tiredness scores also improved similarly, dropping 8.9 points for L-thyroxine–treated patients, compared with –10.9 for those receiving placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of 0.0 (95% CI, –4.1 to 4.0; P = 0.99).

Dr. de Montmollin and colleagues also noted no significant between-group differences in two secondary measures they looked at in the study: patient self-reported quality of life and handgrip strength, an objective measure of weakness.

The results “do not support the hypothesis that the subgroup of adults with SCH [subclinical hypothyroidism] and high symptom burden before treatment benefit from L-thyroxine therapy,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. “This may be because of regression to the mean, the natural history of SCH, or the placebo effect and may explain why many persons with symptomatic SCH and their treating physicians are convinced that L-thyroxine is beneficial,” they added.

In an interview, Dr. de Montmollin commented that treating physicians “should reconsider prescribing or offering L-thyroxine to older adults with SCH, even those with consistent symptoms, because there is no clear evidence for its benefit in treating SCH to date and a risk of harm related to overtreatment is still possible. In addition, it is associated with unnecessary costs for the patient and for the health system.”

The investigators mentioned several limitations to their study, including its post hoc design and a small sample size. Additionally, they wrote, the findings “cannot exclude the possibility that a rare subgroup with greater symptom burden would benefit from L-thyroxine therapy” or that more aggressive treatment leading to lower TSH levels would confer benefit.

The study was sponsored by the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, while the TRUST trial was sponsored by the European Union and with medication donated by Merck. Dr. de Montmollin and her coauthors disclosed no financial ties to industry.

SOURCE: De Montmollin et al. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 5. doi: 10.7326/M19-3193.

A new analysis of the large, randomized TRUST trial shows that L-thyroxine does not improve pronounced symptoms in older people with subclinical hypothyroidism.

The original trial established that the synthetic hormone did not improve symptoms in the overall trial population, a finding that called into question the routine prescribing of thyroid medication for this patient group.

But questions lingered as to whether patients with a higher burden of symptoms might still benefit from treatment with L-thyroxine.

For their research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Maria de Montmollin, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland), looked at results for 638 subjects randomized to L-thyroxine treatment (50 mcg daily for most patients) or placebo and followed for at least 1 year in the Thyroid Hormone Therapy for Older Adults With Subclinical Hypothyroidism (TRUST) trial (N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2534-2544). All were 65 years or older and met the criteria for subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as persistent elevated TSH levels (4.60-19.99 mIU/L) in combination with a normal free-thyroxine level.

Dr. de Montmollin and her colleagues identified 132 participants with high hypothyroid symptom burden at baseline and 133 patients with high scores for tiredness, using the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. Cutoffs were a baseline symptoms score of higher than 30 (on a 1-100 scale), or a tiredness score of over 40.

At 1 year, researchers saw no statistically significant improvements in either measure for the L-thyroxine treated patients, compared with placebo.

Among the patients with high symptom burden, those on L-thyroxine saw a score improvement of –12.3 points, compared with –10.4 for those on placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of –2.0 (95% confidence interval, –5.5 to 1.5; P = 0.27). Tiredness scores also improved similarly, dropping 8.9 points for L-thyroxine–treated patients, compared with –10.9 for those receiving placebo, for an adjusted between-group difference of 0.0 (95% CI, –4.1 to 4.0; P = 0.99).

Dr. de Montmollin and colleagues also noted no significant between-group differences in two secondary measures they looked at in the study: patient self-reported quality of life and handgrip strength, an objective measure of weakness.

The results “do not support the hypothesis that the subgroup of adults with SCH [subclinical hypothyroidism] and high symptom burden before treatment benefit from L-thyroxine therapy,” the investigators wrote in their analysis. “This may be because of regression to the mean, the natural history of SCH, or the placebo effect and may explain why many persons with symptomatic SCH and their treating physicians are convinced that L-thyroxine is beneficial,” they added.

In an interview, Dr. de Montmollin commented that treating physicians “should reconsider prescribing or offering L-thyroxine to older adults with SCH, even those with consistent symptoms, because there is no clear evidence for its benefit in treating SCH to date and a risk of harm related to overtreatment is still possible. In addition, it is associated with unnecessary costs for the patient and for the health system.”

The investigators mentioned several limitations to their study, including its post hoc design and a small sample size. Additionally, they wrote, the findings “cannot exclude the possibility that a rare subgroup with greater symptom burden would benefit from L-thyroxine therapy” or that more aggressive treatment leading to lower TSH levels would confer benefit.

The study was sponsored by the National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, while the TRUST trial was sponsored by the European Union and with medication donated by Merck. Dr. de Montmollin and her coauthors disclosed no financial ties to industry.

SOURCE: De Montmollin et al. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 5. doi: 10.7326/M19-3193.

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has come through with the widely anticipated approval of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), adding to the rich array of medications lately available for this indication.

The approval follows the agency’s priority review of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and heart-failure hospitalization in adults with HFrEF following last year’s seminal results of the DAPA-HF trial.

In that study, treatment with dapagliflozin led to about a one-fourth reduction in risk of a primary endpoint consisting primarily of CV death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with chronic HFrEF, in both those with and without diabetes. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial had entered more than 4,700 patients.

Soon after, the FDA approved dapagliflozin for reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalization in adults with type 2 diabetes and other CV risk factors.

And of course, dapagliflozin – traditionally viewed only as an antidiabetic agent – has long been indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.

The latest approval for patients with New York Heart Association functional class III-IV HFrEF makes dapagliflozin the only SGLT2 inhibitor to be indicated for heart failure in the absence of diabetes.

Soon after the DAPA-HF results had been unveiled at a major meeting, heart failure expert Christopher O’Connor, MD, expressed concern that dapagliflozin’s uptake for patients with HFrEF would be slow once it gained approval for patients without diabetes.

“We have to think of this as a drug that you would prescribe like an ACE inhibitor, or a beta-blocker, or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or sacubitril/valsartan [Entresto, Novartis],” Dr. O’Connor, of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., said in an interview.

Dr. O’Connor was not associated with DAPA-HF and had previously disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

Menopausal women with an intact uterus treated for a year with a daily, oral, single-pill formulation of estradiol and progesterone for the primary goal of reducing moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms showed evidence of reduced bone turnover in a post hoc, subgroup analysis of 157 women enrolled in the REPLENISH trial.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

These findings “provide support for a potential skeletal benefit” when menopausal women with an intact uterus regularly used the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation to treat moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS), Risa Kagan, MD, and associates wrote in an abstract released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG canceled the meeting, and released abstracts for press coverage.

The reductions reported for three different markers of bone turnover compared with placebo control after 6 and 12 months on treatment with a U.S.-marketed estradiol plus progesterone formulation were ”reassuring and in line with expectations” said Lubna Pal, MBBS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study. But the findings fell short of addressing the more clinically relevant issue of whether the tested regimen reduces the rate of bone fractures.

The analysis included 56 women treated with 1.0 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, 56 who received 0.5 mg estradiol and 100 mg progesterone daily, and 45 women in the placebo arm. It assessed changes from baseline in the on-treatment compared with placebo groups using immunoassays for bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), C-terminal telopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTX-1), and N-terminal propeptide of type 1 procollagen (PINP). For this analysis, the researchers combined the two active-treatment arms, and found that all three markers showed statistically significant drops from baseline with treatment, compared with placebo at both 6- and 12-month follow-up. For all three markers, the declines on active treatment grew larger with time, and after 12 months the mean drops from baseline compared with placebo were an 18% relative reduction in BSAP, a 41% relative reduction in CTX-1, and a 29% relative reduction in PINP, reported Dr. Kagan, a gynecologist based in Berkeley, Calif., who is affiliated with the University of California San Francisco.

In addition to not yet providing more clinically meaningful results on bone fracture rates, Dr. Pal cited additional issues that limit interpretation of both these findings and the broader REPLENISH results. First, the new analysis of bone-turnover markers as reported in the abstract does not allow assessment of a possible dose-dependent effect on bone turnover. More importantly, while the full REPLENISH trial provided reassuring data on endometrial protection, it has not yet reported data on the other major safety concern of hormone replacement: the effects of treatment on breast cancer rates. “They need to show no harm” in breast tissue, Dr. Pal said in an interview. In addition, the positive effect reported on markers of bone turnover is not unique to this formulation. Other formulations with estrogen at similar dosages would have similar effects, she said.

Other considerations when using an oral formulation include the reduced risk for prothrombotic effects from estradiol when delivered transdermally instead of orally, although some women have trouble getting insurance coverage for transdermal formulations, Dr. Pal said. Oral estrogen is appropriate only for women without an elevated clotting risk. Daily progesterone treatment also is more problematic than a cyclical dosage regimen, but noncontinuous progesterone results in monthly bleeding, something that some women prefer to avoid. “I’m not convinced that continuous progesterone is a physiologic approach,” said Dr. Pal, a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. In addition, some women may find the formulation attractive because both the estradiol and progesterone are bioidentical and not synthetic molecules.

In short, the oral estradiol plus progesterone formulation tested in REPLENISH “is another tool” that’s an option for selected menopausal women with a uterus. “The bone findings are in line with expectations and are reassuring. Long-term data are keenly awaited to understand whether the bone marker changes lead to fewer fractures. The impact of the treatment on breast safety will be especially important.” For women who want a bioidentical, oral option and to not have bleeding, the tested formulation can be an effective option providing both symptom benefit and endometrial protection, Dr. Pal said.

REPLENISH was funded by TherapeuticsMD, the company that markets the tested estradiol plus progesterone formulation (Bijuva). Dr. Kagan has been a consultant and adviser to and speaker on behalf of Therapeutics MD, and she has also been a consultant or adviser to or has spoken on behalf of AMAG, Amgen, Astellas, Lupin, Radius, and Warner Chilcott/Allergan, and she has received research funding from Endoceutics. Dr. Pal has been a consultant to Flow Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kagan R et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 May;135:62S. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000665076.20231.a8.

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in its class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the both the combined incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization, and the rate of adverse renal outcomes, in the mandated CV outcomes trial run for ertugliflozin with more than 8,200 patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

Merck, one of the companies that markets the drug, announced the topline results in a quarterly financial report released on April 28, 2020.

According to the report, the results from the ertugliflozin cardiovascular outcomes trial “achieved its primary endpoint of noninferiority for major adverse CV events (MACE), compared to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic CV disease,” but “the key secondary endpoints of superiority” of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, “for time to the composite of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure, CV death alone, and the composite of renal death, dialysis/transplant or doubling of serum creatinine from baseline were not met.”

However, the report added that, “while not a prespecified hypothesis for statistical testing, a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure was observed” with ertugliflozin treatment, and the report further said that the drug’s safety profile in the trial “was consistent with that reported in previous studies.” The statement closed by saying that detailed results from the trial are scheduled to be presented on June 16, 2020, at the virtual American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions.

These results came from the VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin EffIcacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes) trial, which researchers said in 2018 had administered at least one investigational dose to 8,238 randomized patients at centers in any of 34 countries during two enrollment periods in 2013-2015 and 2016-2017 (Am Heart J. 2018 Dec;206:11-23). The tested agent, ertugliflozin (Steglatro) received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval late in 2017 for the indication of improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The FDA mandated cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glycemic control drugs in guidance the agency issued in 2008 (the FDA released in March 2020 a draft of updated guidance on this topic).

Other FDA-approved agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class include canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), and all three showed evidence for a statistically significant effect on reducing the incidence of CV disease death and heart failure hospitalizations, as well as renal complications (Can J Diabetes. 2020 Feb;44[1]:61-7). The evidence showing that several SGLT2 drugs have important and consistent effects on endpoints like CV death, heart failure hospitalizations, and renal complications has helped propel this class of agents to the forefront of glycemic control treatments. More recently, one agent from this group, dapagliflozin, also significantly cut the rate of heart failure worsening or CV disease death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). Based on this evidence, the FDA is currently considering adding a new indication for dapagliflozin that would also label it for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes.

[email protected]

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in its class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the both the combined incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization, and the rate of adverse renal outcomes, in the mandated CV outcomes trial run for ertugliflozin with more than 8,200 patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

Merck, one of the companies that markets the drug, announced the topline results in a quarterly financial report released on April 28, 2020.

According to the report, the results from the ertugliflozin cardiovascular outcomes trial “achieved its primary endpoint of noninferiority for major adverse CV events (MACE), compared to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic CV disease,” but “the key secondary endpoints of superiority” of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, “for time to the composite of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure, CV death alone, and the composite of renal death, dialysis/transplant or doubling of serum creatinine from baseline were not met.”

However, the report added that, “while not a prespecified hypothesis for statistical testing, a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure was observed” with ertugliflozin treatment, and the report further said that the drug’s safety profile in the trial “was consistent with that reported in previous studies.” The statement closed by saying that detailed results from the trial are scheduled to be presented on June 16, 2020, at the virtual American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions.

These results came from the VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin EffIcacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes) trial, which researchers said in 2018 had administered at least one investigational dose to 8,238 randomized patients at centers in any of 34 countries during two enrollment periods in 2013-2015 and 2016-2017 (Am Heart J. 2018 Dec;206:11-23). The tested agent, ertugliflozin (Steglatro) received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval late in 2017 for the indication of improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The FDA mandated cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glycemic control drugs in guidance the agency issued in 2008 (the FDA released in March 2020 a draft of updated guidance on this topic).

Other FDA-approved agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class include canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), and all three showed evidence for a statistically significant effect on reducing the incidence of CV disease death and heart failure hospitalizations, as well as renal complications (Can J Diabetes. 2020 Feb;44[1]:61-7). The evidence showing that several SGLT2 drugs have important and consistent effects on endpoints like CV death, heart failure hospitalizations, and renal complications has helped propel this class of agents to the forefront of glycemic control treatments. More recently, one agent from this group, dapagliflozin, also significantly cut the rate of heart failure worsening or CV disease death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). Based on this evidence, the FDA is currently considering adding a new indication for dapagliflozin that would also label it for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes.

[email protected]

The sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor ertugliflozin broke ranks with the other drugs in its class and failed to produce statistically significant drops in the both the combined incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death or heart failure hospitalization, and the rate of adverse renal outcomes, in the mandated CV outcomes trial run for ertugliflozin with more than 8,200 patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease.

Merck, one of the companies that markets the drug, announced the topline results in a quarterly financial report released on April 28, 2020.

According to the report, the results from the ertugliflozin cardiovascular outcomes trial “achieved its primary endpoint of noninferiority for major adverse CV events (MACE), compared to placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established atherosclerotic CV disease,” but “the key secondary endpoints of superiority” of ertugliflozin, compared with placebo, “for time to the composite of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure, CV death alone, and the composite of renal death, dialysis/transplant or doubling of serum creatinine from baseline were not met.”

However, the report added that, “while not a prespecified hypothesis for statistical testing, a reduction in hospitalization for heart failure was observed” with ertugliflozin treatment, and the report further said that the drug’s safety profile in the trial “was consistent with that reported in previous studies.” The statement closed by saying that detailed results from the trial are scheduled to be presented on June 16, 2020, at the virtual American Diabetes Association’s 80th Scientific Sessions.

These results came from the VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin EffIcacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes) trial, which researchers said in 2018 had administered at least one investigational dose to 8,238 randomized patients at centers in any of 34 countries during two enrollment periods in 2013-2015 and 2016-2017 (Am Heart J. 2018 Dec;206:11-23). The tested agent, ertugliflozin (Steglatro) received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval late in 2017 for the indication of improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The FDA mandated cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glycemic control drugs in guidance the agency issued in 2008 (the FDA released in March 2020 a draft of updated guidance on this topic).

Other FDA-approved agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class include canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance), and all three showed evidence for a statistically significant effect on reducing the incidence of CV disease death and heart failure hospitalizations, as well as renal complications (Can J Diabetes. 2020 Feb;44[1]:61-7). The evidence showing that several SGLT2 drugs have important and consistent effects on endpoints like CV death, heart failure hospitalizations, and renal complications has helped propel this class of agents to the forefront of glycemic control treatments. More recently, one agent from this group, dapagliflozin, also significantly cut the rate of heart failure worsening or CV disease death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008). Based on this evidence, the FDA is currently considering adding a new indication for dapagliflozin that would also label it for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without diabetes.

[email protected]