Endocrinology

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Almost a century after its discovery, insulin remains a life-saving yet costly medication: In the past 15 years, prices have risen more than 500%.¹ Patients may ask you why the insulin you prescribe is so expensive, and the complex process for determining drug costs makes it difficult to answer. But the bottom line is, patients need their insulin—and they want it without breaking the bank.

Thankfully, there are several strategies for reducing the cost of insulin. First and foremost, patients must be advised that not taking their prescribed insulin, or taking less insulin than prescribed, is not a safe alternative. An individualized cost-benefit analysis between patient and provider can help to determine the best option for each patient. After working in endocrinology for 5 years, I have learned the following 10 ways to help patients whose financial situations limit their access to insulin.

1 Try older insulins, including mixed insulin 70/30 or 50/50, insulin NPH, or regular insulin. Because the beneficial effects may not be as long lasting with these as with newer insulins on the market, your patient may need to test glucose levels more frequently. Also, insulin NPH and any mixed insulins are suspensions, not solutions, so patients will need to gently roll older insulins prior to use. Those in pen form may also have a shorter shelf life.

2 Switch to a syringe and vial. Although dosing can be less precise, this could be a viable option for patients with good vision and dexterity. This method helps patients save in 3 ways: (1) the insulin is less expensive; (2) syringes generally cost less (about $30 for 100) than pen needle tips (about $50 for 100); and (3) vials of NPH are longer-lasting suspensions that are stable for about 28 days once opened, compared to 14 days for pens.^2-4

3 Switch from a 30- to a 90-day supply of refills. This helps to lower copays. For example, a mail-order program (eg, Express Scripts) that ships from a warehouse typically offers lower pricing than a brick-and-mortar pharmacy with greater overhead. Many of these programs provide 2-pharmacist verification for accuracy and free home delivery of medications at a 10% discount, as well as 24-hour pharmacist access.⁵ The ease of obtaining prescriptions by this method also can help with medication adherence.

4 Patient assistance programs (PAPs) offered by insulin manufacturers can help lower costs for patients who find it difficult to afford their medication. Information on these programs is available on the respective company’s websites, usually in multiple languages (although some are limited to English and Spanish). Patients applying for a PAP must provide a proof of income and adhere to the program’s specific criteria. Renewal is typically required each year.^6-8

5 Copay cards are available to many patients with private insurance and may help make insulin more affordable. Patients may be able to receive a $25 monthly supply of insulin for up to 1 year (specific terms vary). Maximum contributions and contributions toward deductibles also vary by program, so patients need to familiarize themselves with what their particular copay card allows. Generally, copay cards are not a sustainable long-term solution; for one thing, they expire, and for another, emphasis should be placed on affordable medications rather than affording expensive medications.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Continue to: 6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare...

6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare can help lower the costs of prescription medications.⁹ A database of pharmaceutical PAPs is available on the Medicare website.¹⁰ Some PAPs may help patients on Medicare pay through the $5,100 coverage gap or “donut hole”—a term referring to a gap in prescription drug coverage once patients have met their prescription limit (all Medicare part D plans have a donut hole).^11,12 Patients and providers will need to read the fine print when applying for an external PAP, because some have a monthly or one-time start-up fee for processing the paperwork (and note, there is often paperwork for the relief program in addition to the PAP paperwork through the pharmaceutical company).

7 A Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is available in many states; check medicare.gov to see if your state is eligible. For patients 55 and older on Medicare or Medicaid who do not opt for care at a nursing home facility, PACE may be able to provide care and coverage in the patient’s home or at a PACE facility. Services include primary care, hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, medical specialty services, and prescription drugs. To be eligible for PACE services, the patient must live in the service area of a PACE organization and have a requirement for a nursing home-level of care (as certified by your state).

8 Shop around for the best deal. Encourage your patients to comparison shop for the best prices rather than accepting the first or only option at their usual pharmacy. Different pharmacies offer drugs at lower prices than competitors. Also, continually compare prices at GoodRx or HealthWarehouse.com. The latter—a fully licensed Internet-based pharmacy—sells FDA-approved medications at affordable prices in all 50 states, without the requirement for insurance coverage.

9 Use of a patch pump may be less expensive for patients with type 2 diabetes who are taking basal-bolus regimens. Patches slowly deliver single short-acting insulin (usually insulin aspart or lispro) that acts as a basal insulin, with an additional reservoir for prandial insulin at mealtime and for snacks. As there is a catheter in the patch, patients would not require the use of needles.¹³

10 Try removing mealtime insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who need minimal mealtime insulin. Clinicians can initiate a safe trial of this removal by encouraging the patient to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, increase exercise, and/or use other noninsulin medications that are more affordable.

Continue to: The affordability of insulins...

The affordability of insulins is a potentially uncomfortable but necessary conversation to have with your patient. Providers are one of the best resources for patients who seek relief from financial difficulties. The recommendations discussed here can help providers and patients design a cost-conscious plan for insulin treatment. Although each recommendation is viable, the pros and cons must be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Providers and patients should also pay attention to the Senate Finance Committee’s ongoing discussions and possible resolutions that could result in lower insulin costs. Until legislation that lowers the prices of insulin comes to fruition, however, providers should continue to plan with their patients on how to best get their insulin at the lowest cost.

Test yourself with the poll here.

Almost a century after its discovery, insulin remains a life-saving yet costly medication: In the past 15 years, prices have risen more than 500%.¹ Patients may ask you why the insulin you prescribe is so expensive, and the complex process for determining drug costs makes it difficult to answer. But the bottom line is, patients need their insulin—and they want it without breaking the bank.

Thankfully, there are several strategies for reducing the cost of insulin. First and foremost, patients must be advised that not taking their prescribed insulin, or taking less insulin than prescribed, is not a safe alternative. An individualized cost-benefit analysis between patient and provider can help to determine the best option for each patient. After working in endocrinology for 5 years, I have learned the following 10 ways to help patients whose financial situations limit their access to insulin.

1 Try older insulins, including mixed insulin 70/30 or 50/50, insulin NPH, or regular insulin. Because the beneficial effects may not be as long lasting with these as with newer insulins on the market, your patient may need to test glucose levels more frequently. Also, insulin NPH and any mixed insulins are suspensions, not solutions, so patients will need to gently roll older insulins prior to use. Those in pen form may also have a shorter shelf life.

2 Switch to a syringe and vial. Although dosing can be less precise, this could be a viable option for patients with good vision and dexterity. This method helps patients save in 3 ways: (1) the insulin is less expensive; (2) syringes generally cost less (about $30 for 100) than pen needle tips (about $50 for 100); and (3) vials of NPH are longer-lasting suspensions that are stable for about 28 days once opened, compared to 14 days for pens.^2-4

3 Switch from a 30- to a 90-day supply of refills. This helps to lower copays. For example, a mail-order program (eg, Express Scripts) that ships from a warehouse typically offers lower pricing than a brick-and-mortar pharmacy with greater overhead. Many of these programs provide 2-pharmacist verification for accuracy and free home delivery of medications at a 10% discount, as well as 24-hour pharmacist access.⁵ The ease of obtaining prescriptions by this method also can help with medication adherence.

4 Patient assistance programs (PAPs) offered by insulin manufacturers can help lower costs for patients who find it difficult to afford their medication. Information on these programs is available on the respective company’s websites, usually in multiple languages (although some are limited to English and Spanish). Patients applying for a PAP must provide a proof of income and adhere to the program’s specific criteria. Renewal is typically required each year.^6-8

5 Copay cards are available to many patients with private insurance and may help make insulin more affordable. Patients may be able to receive a $25 monthly supply of insulin for up to 1 year (specific terms vary). Maximum contributions and contributions toward deductibles also vary by program, so patients need to familiarize themselves with what their particular copay card allows. Generally, copay cards are not a sustainable long-term solution; for one thing, they expire, and for another, emphasis should be placed on affordable medications rather than affording expensive medications.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Continue to: 6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare...

6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare can help lower the costs of prescription medications.⁹ A database of pharmaceutical PAPs is available on the Medicare website.¹⁰ Some PAPs may help patients on Medicare pay through the $5,100 coverage gap or “donut hole”—a term referring to a gap in prescription drug coverage once patients have met their prescription limit (all Medicare part D plans have a donut hole).^11,12 Patients and providers will need to read the fine print when applying for an external PAP, because some have a monthly or one-time start-up fee for processing the paperwork (and note, there is often paperwork for the relief program in addition to the PAP paperwork through the pharmaceutical company).

7 A Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is available in many states; check medicare.gov to see if your state is eligible. For patients 55 and older on Medicare or Medicaid who do not opt for care at a nursing home facility, PACE may be able to provide care and coverage in the patient’s home or at a PACE facility. Services include primary care, hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, medical specialty services, and prescription drugs. To be eligible for PACE services, the patient must live in the service area of a PACE organization and have a requirement for a nursing home-level of care (as certified by your state).

8 Shop around for the best deal. Encourage your patients to comparison shop for the best prices rather than accepting the first or only option at their usual pharmacy. Different pharmacies offer drugs at lower prices than competitors. Also, continually compare prices at GoodRx or HealthWarehouse.com. The latter—a fully licensed Internet-based pharmacy—sells FDA-approved medications at affordable prices in all 50 states, without the requirement for insurance coverage.

9 Use of a patch pump may be less expensive for patients with type 2 diabetes who are taking basal-bolus regimens. Patches slowly deliver single short-acting insulin (usually insulin aspart or lispro) that acts as a basal insulin, with an additional reservoir for prandial insulin at mealtime and for snacks. As there is a catheter in the patch, patients would not require the use of needles.¹³

10 Try removing mealtime insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who need minimal mealtime insulin. Clinicians can initiate a safe trial of this removal by encouraging the patient to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, increase exercise, and/or use other noninsulin medications that are more affordable.

Continue to: The affordability of insulins...

The affordability of insulins is a potentially uncomfortable but necessary conversation to have with your patient. Providers are one of the best resources for patients who seek relief from financial difficulties. The recommendations discussed here can help providers and patients design a cost-conscious plan for insulin treatment. Although each recommendation is viable, the pros and cons must be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Providers and patients should also pay attention to the Senate Finance Committee’s ongoing discussions and possible resolutions that could result in lower insulin costs. Until legislation that lowers the prices of insulin comes to fruition, however, providers should continue to plan with their patients on how to best get their insulin at the lowest cost.

Test yourself with the poll here.

Almost a century after its discovery, insulin remains a life-saving yet costly medication: In the past 15 years, prices have risen more than 500%.¹ Patients may ask you why the insulin you prescribe is so expensive, and the complex process for determining drug costs makes it difficult to answer. But the bottom line is, patients need their insulin—and they want it without breaking the bank.

Thankfully, there are several strategies for reducing the cost of insulin. First and foremost, patients must be advised that not taking their prescribed insulin, or taking less insulin than prescribed, is not a safe alternative. An individualized cost-benefit analysis between patient and provider can help to determine the best option for each patient. After working in endocrinology for 5 years, I have learned the following 10 ways to help patients whose financial situations limit their access to insulin.

1 Try older insulins, including mixed insulin 70/30 or 50/50, insulin NPH, or regular insulin. Because the beneficial effects may not be as long lasting with these as with newer insulins on the market, your patient may need to test glucose levels more frequently. Also, insulin NPH and any mixed insulins are suspensions, not solutions, so patients will need to gently roll older insulins prior to use. Those in pen form may also have a shorter shelf life.

2 Switch to a syringe and vial. Although dosing can be less precise, this could be a viable option for patients with good vision and dexterity. This method helps patients save in 3 ways: (1) the insulin is less expensive; (2) syringes generally cost less (about $30 for 100) than pen needle tips (about $50 for 100); and (3) vials of NPH are longer-lasting suspensions that are stable for about 28 days once opened, compared to 14 days for pens.^2-4

3 Switch from a 30- to a 90-day supply of refills. This helps to lower copays. For example, a mail-order program (eg, Express Scripts) that ships from a warehouse typically offers lower pricing than a brick-and-mortar pharmacy with greater overhead. Many of these programs provide 2-pharmacist verification for accuracy and free home delivery of medications at a 10% discount, as well as 24-hour pharmacist access.⁵ The ease of obtaining prescriptions by this method also can help with medication adherence.

4 Patient assistance programs (PAPs) offered by insulin manufacturers can help lower costs for patients who find it difficult to afford their medication. Information on these programs is available on the respective company’s websites, usually in multiple languages (although some are limited to English and Spanish). Patients applying for a PAP must provide a proof of income and adhere to the program’s specific criteria. Renewal is typically required each year.^6-8

5 Copay cards are available to many patients with private insurance and may help make insulin more affordable. Patients may be able to receive a $25 monthly supply of insulin for up to 1 year (specific terms vary). Maximum contributions and contributions toward deductibles also vary by program, so patients need to familiarize themselves with what their particular copay card allows. Generally, copay cards are not a sustainable long-term solution; for one thing, they expire, and for another, emphasis should be placed on affordable medications rather than affording expensive medications.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Continue to: 6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare...

6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare can help lower the costs of prescription medications.⁹ A database of pharmaceutical PAPs is available on the Medicare website.¹⁰ Some PAPs may help patients on Medicare pay through the $5,100 coverage gap or “donut hole”—a term referring to a gap in prescription drug coverage once patients have met their prescription limit (all Medicare part D plans have a donut hole).^11,12 Patients and providers will need to read the fine print when applying for an external PAP, because some have a monthly or one-time start-up fee for processing the paperwork (and note, there is often paperwork for the relief program in addition to the PAP paperwork through the pharmaceutical company).

7 A Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is available in many states; check medicare.gov to see if your state is eligible. For patients 55 and older on Medicare or Medicaid who do not opt for care at a nursing home facility, PACE may be able to provide care and coverage in the patient’s home or at a PACE facility. Services include primary care, hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, medical specialty services, and prescription drugs. To be eligible for PACE services, the patient must live in the service area of a PACE organization and have a requirement for a nursing home-level of care (as certified by your state).

8 Shop around for the best deal. Encourage your patients to comparison shop for the best prices rather than accepting the first or only option at their usual pharmacy. Different pharmacies offer drugs at lower prices than competitors. Also, continually compare prices at GoodRx or HealthWarehouse.com. The latter—a fully licensed Internet-based pharmacy—sells FDA-approved medications at affordable prices in all 50 states, without the requirement for insurance coverage.

9 Use of a patch pump may be less expensive for patients with type 2 diabetes who are taking basal-bolus regimens. Patches slowly deliver single short-acting insulin (usually insulin aspart or lispro) that acts as a basal insulin, with an additional reservoir for prandial insulin at mealtime and for snacks. As there is a catheter in the patch, patients would not require the use of needles.¹³

10 Try removing mealtime insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who need minimal mealtime insulin. Clinicians can initiate a safe trial of this removal by encouraging the patient to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, increase exercise, and/or use other noninsulin medications that are more affordable.

Continue to: The affordability of insulins...

The affordability of insulins is a potentially uncomfortable but necessary conversation to have with your patient. Providers are one of the best resources for patients who seek relief from financial difficulties. The recommendations discussed here can help providers and patients design a cost-conscious plan for insulin treatment. Although each recommendation is viable, the pros and cons must be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Providers and patients should also pay attention to the Senate Finance Committee’s ongoing discussions and possible resolutions that could result in lower insulin costs. Until legislation that lowers the prices of insulin comes to fruition, however, providers should continue to plan with their patients on how to best get their insulin at the lowest cost.

Test yourself with the poll here.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

A workup for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia was negative for hypothyroidism and nephrotic syndrome. She was currently taking no medications. She had no family history of dyslipidemia, and she denied alcohol consumption.

Based on the patient’s presentation, history, and the results of laboratory testing and skin biopsy, the diagnosis was eruptive xanthoma.

A RESULT OF ELEVATED TRIGLYCERIDES

Eruptive xanthoma is associated with elevation of chylomicrons and triglycerides.¹ Hyperlipidemia that causes eruptive xanthoma may be familial (ie, due to a primary genetic defect) or secondary to another disease, or both.

Types of primary hypertriglyceridemia include elevated chylomicrons (Frederickson classification type I), elevated very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) (Frederickson type IV), and elevation of both chylomicrons and VLDL (Frederickson type V).^2,3 Hypertriglyceridemia may also be secondary to obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, liver cirrhosis, excess ethanol ingestion, and medicines such as retinoids and estrogens.^2,3

Lesions of eruptive xanthoma are yellowish papules 2 to 5 mm in diameter surrounded by an erythematous border. They are formed by clusters of foamy cells caused by phagocytosis of macrophages as a consequence of increased accumulations of intracellular lipids. The most common sites are the buttocks, extensor surfaces of the arms, and the back.⁴

Eruptive xanthoma occurs with markedly elevated triglyceride levels (ie, > 1,000 mg/dL),⁵ with an estimated prevalence of 18 cases per 100,000 people (< 0.02%).⁶ Diagnosis is usually established through the clinical history, physical examination, and prompt laboratory confirmation of hypertriglyceridemia. Skin biopsy is rarely if ever needed.

RECOGNIZE AND TREAT PROMPTLY TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATIONS

Severe hypertriglyceridemia poses an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Early recognition and medical treatment in our patient prevented serious complications.

Treatment of eruptive xanthoma includes identifying the underlying cause of hypertriglyceridemia and commencing lifestyle modifications that include weight reduction, aerobic exercise, a strict low-fat diet with avoidance of simple carbohydrates and alcohol,⁷ and drug therapy.

The patient’s treatment plan

Although HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have a modest triglyceride-lowering effect and are useful to modify cardiovascular risk, fibric acid derivatives (eg, gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) are the first-line therapy.⁸ Omega-3 fatty acids, statins, or niacin may be added if necessary.⁸

Our patient’s uncontrolled glycemia caused marked hypertriglyceridemia, perhaps from a decrease in lipoprotein lipase activity in adipose tissue and muscle. Lifestyle modifications, glucose-lowering agents (metformin, glimepiride), and fenofibrate were prescribed. She was also advised to seek medical attention if she developed upper-abdominal pain, which could be a symptom of pancreatitis.

A workup for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia was negative for hypothyroidism and nephrotic syndrome. She was currently taking no medications. She had no family history of dyslipidemia, and she denied alcohol consumption.

Based on the patient’s presentation, history, and the results of laboratory testing and skin biopsy, the diagnosis was eruptive xanthoma.

A RESULT OF ELEVATED TRIGLYCERIDES

Eruptive xanthoma is associated with elevation of chylomicrons and triglycerides.¹ Hyperlipidemia that causes eruptive xanthoma may be familial (ie, due to a primary genetic defect) or secondary to another disease, or both.

Types of primary hypertriglyceridemia include elevated chylomicrons (Frederickson classification type I), elevated very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) (Frederickson type IV), and elevation of both chylomicrons and VLDL (Frederickson type V).^2,3 Hypertriglyceridemia may also be secondary to obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, liver cirrhosis, excess ethanol ingestion, and medicines such as retinoids and estrogens.^2,3

Lesions of eruptive xanthoma are yellowish papules 2 to 5 mm in diameter surrounded by an erythematous border. They are formed by clusters of foamy cells caused by phagocytosis of macrophages as a consequence of increased accumulations of intracellular lipids. The most common sites are the buttocks, extensor surfaces of the arms, and the back.⁴

Eruptive xanthoma occurs with markedly elevated triglyceride levels (ie, > 1,000 mg/dL),⁵ with an estimated prevalence of 18 cases per 100,000 people (< 0.02%).⁶ Diagnosis is usually established through the clinical history, physical examination, and prompt laboratory confirmation of hypertriglyceridemia. Skin biopsy is rarely if ever needed.

RECOGNIZE AND TREAT PROMPTLY TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATIONS

Severe hypertriglyceridemia poses an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Early recognition and medical treatment in our patient prevented serious complications.

Treatment of eruptive xanthoma includes identifying the underlying cause of hypertriglyceridemia and commencing lifestyle modifications that include weight reduction, aerobic exercise, a strict low-fat diet with avoidance of simple carbohydrates and alcohol,⁷ and drug therapy.

The patient’s treatment plan

Although HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have a modest triglyceride-lowering effect and are useful to modify cardiovascular risk, fibric acid derivatives (eg, gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) are the first-line therapy.⁸ Omega-3 fatty acids, statins, or niacin may be added if necessary.⁸

Our patient’s uncontrolled glycemia caused marked hypertriglyceridemia, perhaps from a decrease in lipoprotein lipase activity in adipose tissue and muscle. Lifestyle modifications, glucose-lowering agents (metformin, glimepiride), and fenofibrate were prescribed. She was also advised to seek medical attention if she developed upper-abdominal pain, which could be a symptom of pancreatitis.

A workup for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia was negative for hypothyroidism and nephrotic syndrome. She was currently taking no medications. She had no family history of dyslipidemia, and she denied alcohol consumption.

Based on the patient’s presentation, history, and the results of laboratory testing and skin biopsy, the diagnosis was eruptive xanthoma.

A RESULT OF ELEVATED TRIGLYCERIDES

Eruptive xanthoma is associated with elevation of chylomicrons and triglycerides.¹ Hyperlipidemia that causes eruptive xanthoma may be familial (ie, due to a primary genetic defect) or secondary to another disease, or both.

Types of primary hypertriglyceridemia include elevated chylomicrons (Frederickson classification type I), elevated very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) (Frederickson type IV), and elevation of both chylomicrons and VLDL (Frederickson type V).^2,3 Hypertriglyceridemia may also be secondary to obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, liver cirrhosis, excess ethanol ingestion, and medicines such as retinoids and estrogens.^2,3

Lesions of eruptive xanthoma are yellowish papules 2 to 5 mm in diameter surrounded by an erythematous border. They are formed by clusters of foamy cells caused by phagocytosis of macrophages as a consequence of increased accumulations of intracellular lipids. The most common sites are the buttocks, extensor surfaces of the arms, and the back.⁴

Eruptive xanthoma occurs with markedly elevated triglyceride levels (ie, > 1,000 mg/dL),⁵ with an estimated prevalence of 18 cases per 100,000 people (< 0.02%).⁶ Diagnosis is usually established through the clinical history, physical examination, and prompt laboratory confirmation of hypertriglyceridemia. Skin biopsy is rarely if ever needed.

RECOGNIZE AND TREAT PROMPTLY TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATIONS

Severe hypertriglyceridemia poses an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Early recognition and medical treatment in our patient prevented serious complications.

Treatment of eruptive xanthoma includes identifying the underlying cause of hypertriglyceridemia and commencing lifestyle modifications that include weight reduction, aerobic exercise, a strict low-fat diet with avoidance of simple carbohydrates and alcohol,⁷ and drug therapy.

The patient’s treatment plan

Although HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have a modest triglyceride-lowering effect and are useful to modify cardiovascular risk, fibric acid derivatives (eg, gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) are the first-line therapy.⁸ Omega-3 fatty acids, statins, or niacin may be added if necessary.⁸

Our patient’s uncontrolled glycemia caused marked hypertriglyceridemia, perhaps from a decrease in lipoprotein lipase activity in adipose tissue and muscle. Lifestyle modifications, glucose-lowering agents (metformin, glimepiride), and fenofibrate were prescribed. She was also advised to seek medical attention if she developed upper-abdominal pain, which could be a symptom of pancreatitis.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.

PARIS – Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant 27% drop in cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients with existing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and no diabetes, results that in a stroke changed the status of dapagliflozin from fundamentally a drug that treats diabetes to a drug that treats heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Dapagliflozin offers a new approach to the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction” (HFrEF), John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results he reported from the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) trial showed statistically significant benefits when adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed therapy for a list of outcomes that include a 17% drop in all-cause death compared with placebo, an 18% fall in cardiovascular death, and a 25% relative reduction in total heart failure hospitalizations plus cardiovascular deaths during a median follow-up of just over 18 months. The primary endpoint of the reduction in cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or an urgent heart failure visit fell by 25% in the enrolled patients with diabetes (45% of the study population, all with type 2 diabetes), and by 27% in the remaining patients who had no diabetes, showing that the presence of diabetes had no impact on the heart failure benefit from dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The absolute reduction in the primary endpoint was about 5%, with a number needed to treat of 21 to prevent one primary endpoint during 18 months of treatment.

Dr. McMurray’s report of the primary endpoint as well as the finding that the drug was as effective in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes were both met with loud applause by the packed congress audience.

The efficacy results also showed that 58% of patients on dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful (5 point or greater) increase in their quality of life score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire after 8 months on treatment compared with a 51% rate in the placebo patients, a statistically significant difference.

The safety results showed no new signals for a drug that already has regulatory approval but was being used in a novel population. The rate of major hypoglycemia was virtually nonexistent, 0.2%, and identical in both treatment arms. All adverse events occurred at roughly equal rates in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, with a 5% rate of adverse events leading to study discontinuation in both arms, and a serious adverse event rate of 38% in the dapaglifolzin patients and 42% in the placebo patients. The rate of worsening renal function was less than 2% in both arms and not statistically different.

“This is as close to a home run as you see in heart failure treatment,” commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, and a heart failure clinician and researcher.

DAPA-HF “is a landmark trial. It took a diabetes drug and used it in patients without diabetes, a concept that would have been considered outlandish 5 years ago. Scientifically it’s huge,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The DAPA-HF results were another step in the remarkable journey toward heart failure intervention taken by the SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransport 2) inhibitor class of drugs that includes dapagliflozin as well as canagliflozin (Invokana) and empagliflozin(Jardiance), a path that began 4 years ago with the report of empagliflozin’s unexpected efficacy for reducing cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in a large cardiovascular-safety study, EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28). Subsequent reports showed similar effects benefiting heart failure and survival for canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, and now with DAPA-HF the evidence extended the benefit to heart failure patients regardless of whether they have diabetes. Additional studies now in progress are exploring the same question for empagliflozin and canagliflozin.

The results from DAPA-HF are likely a class effect for all these SGLT2 inhibitors, suggested Dr. McMurray in a video interview, a view shared by several other experts. He cautioned clinicians against using dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but without diabetes until this indication receives regulatory approval, and even then using dapagliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors this way may take some getting used to on the part of cardiologists and other clinicians.

“The results put dapagliflozin in the same league as [standard HFrEF drugs], but using it will require a shift in thinking. Most physicians will initially say “aren’t SGLT2 inhibitors used for treating diabetes?” Dr. Bhatt said.

“I’m sure most cardiologists are not familiar with the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ll have to educate them,” conceded Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. However, other aspects of dapagliflozin and this drug class in general may make the SGLT2 inhibitors particularly attractive and spur their use once labeling changes.

[email protected]

PARIS – Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant 27% drop in cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients with existing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and no diabetes, results that in a stroke changed the status of dapagliflozin from fundamentally a drug that treats diabetes to a drug that treats heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Dapagliflozin offers a new approach to the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction” (HFrEF), John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results he reported from the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) trial showed statistically significant benefits when adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed therapy for a list of outcomes that include a 17% drop in all-cause death compared with placebo, an 18% fall in cardiovascular death, and a 25% relative reduction in total heart failure hospitalizations plus cardiovascular deaths during a median follow-up of just over 18 months. The primary endpoint of the reduction in cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or an urgent heart failure visit fell by 25% in the enrolled patients with diabetes (45% of the study population, all with type 2 diabetes), and by 27% in the remaining patients who had no diabetes, showing that the presence of diabetes had no impact on the heart failure benefit from dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The absolute reduction in the primary endpoint was about 5%, with a number needed to treat of 21 to prevent one primary endpoint during 18 months of treatment.

Dr. McMurray’s report of the primary endpoint as well as the finding that the drug was as effective in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes were both met with loud applause by the packed congress audience.

The efficacy results also showed that 58% of patients on dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful (5 point or greater) increase in their quality of life score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire after 8 months on treatment compared with a 51% rate in the placebo patients, a statistically significant difference.

The safety results showed no new signals for a drug that already has regulatory approval but was being used in a novel population. The rate of major hypoglycemia was virtually nonexistent, 0.2%, and identical in both treatment arms. All adverse events occurred at roughly equal rates in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, with a 5% rate of adverse events leading to study discontinuation in both arms, and a serious adverse event rate of 38% in the dapaglifolzin patients and 42% in the placebo patients. The rate of worsening renal function was less than 2% in both arms and not statistically different.

“This is as close to a home run as you see in heart failure treatment,” commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, and a heart failure clinician and researcher.

DAPA-HF “is a landmark trial. It took a diabetes drug and used it in patients without diabetes, a concept that would have been considered outlandish 5 years ago. Scientifically it’s huge,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The DAPA-HF results were another step in the remarkable journey toward heart failure intervention taken by the SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransport 2) inhibitor class of drugs that includes dapagliflozin as well as canagliflozin (Invokana) and empagliflozin(Jardiance), a path that began 4 years ago with the report of empagliflozin’s unexpected efficacy for reducing cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in a large cardiovascular-safety study, EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28). Subsequent reports showed similar effects benefiting heart failure and survival for canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, and now with DAPA-HF the evidence extended the benefit to heart failure patients regardless of whether they have diabetes. Additional studies now in progress are exploring the same question for empagliflozin and canagliflozin.

The results from DAPA-HF are likely a class effect for all these SGLT2 inhibitors, suggested Dr. McMurray in a video interview, a view shared by several other experts. He cautioned clinicians against using dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but without diabetes until this indication receives regulatory approval, and even then using dapagliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors this way may take some getting used to on the part of cardiologists and other clinicians.

“The results put dapagliflozin in the same league as [standard HFrEF drugs], but using it will require a shift in thinking. Most physicians will initially say “aren’t SGLT2 inhibitors used for treating diabetes?” Dr. Bhatt said.

“I’m sure most cardiologists are not familiar with the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ll have to educate them,” conceded Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. However, other aspects of dapagliflozin and this drug class in general may make the SGLT2 inhibitors particularly attractive and spur their use once labeling changes.

[email protected]

PARIS – Treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant 27% drop in cardiovascular death or heart failure events in patients with existing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and no diabetes, results that in a stroke changed the status of dapagliflozin from fundamentally a drug that treats diabetes to a drug that treats heart failure.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Dapagliflozin offers a new approach to the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction” (HFrEF), John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results he reported from the DAPA-HF (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) trial showed statistically significant benefits when adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed therapy for a list of outcomes that include a 17% drop in all-cause death compared with placebo, an 18% fall in cardiovascular death, and a 25% relative reduction in total heart failure hospitalizations plus cardiovascular deaths during a median follow-up of just over 18 months. The primary endpoint of the reduction in cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or an urgent heart failure visit fell by 25% in the enrolled patients with diabetes (45% of the study population, all with type 2 diabetes), and by 27% in the remaining patients who had no diabetes, showing that the presence of diabetes had no impact on the heart failure benefit from dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The absolute reduction in the primary endpoint was about 5%, with a number needed to treat of 21 to prevent one primary endpoint during 18 months of treatment.

Dr. McMurray’s report of the primary endpoint as well as the finding that the drug was as effective in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes were both met with loud applause by the packed congress audience.

The efficacy results also showed that 58% of patients on dapagliflozin had a clinically meaningful (5 point or greater) increase in their quality of life score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire after 8 months on treatment compared with a 51% rate in the placebo patients, a statistically significant difference.

The safety results showed no new signals for a drug that already has regulatory approval but was being used in a novel population. The rate of major hypoglycemia was virtually nonexistent, 0.2%, and identical in both treatment arms. All adverse events occurred at roughly equal rates in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, with a 5% rate of adverse events leading to study discontinuation in both arms, and a serious adverse event rate of 38% in the dapaglifolzin patients and 42% in the placebo patients. The rate of worsening renal function was less than 2% in both arms and not statistically different.

“This is as close to a home run as you see in heart failure treatment,” commented Douglas L. Mann, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, and a heart failure clinician and researcher.

DAPA-HF “is a landmark trial. It took a diabetes drug and used it in patients without diabetes, a concept that would have been considered outlandish 5 years ago. Scientifically it’s huge,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The DAPA-HF results were another step in the remarkable journey toward heart failure intervention taken by the SGLT2 (sodium glucose cotransport 2) inhibitor class of drugs that includes dapagliflozin as well as canagliflozin (Invokana) and empagliflozin(Jardiance), a path that began 4 years ago with the report of empagliflozin’s unexpected efficacy for reducing cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations in a large cardiovascular-safety study, EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28). Subsequent reports showed similar effects benefiting heart failure and survival for canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, and now with DAPA-HF the evidence extended the benefit to heart failure patients regardless of whether they have diabetes. Additional studies now in progress are exploring the same question for empagliflozin and canagliflozin.

The results from DAPA-HF are likely a class effect for all these SGLT2 inhibitors, suggested Dr. McMurray in a video interview, a view shared by several other experts. He cautioned clinicians against using dapagliflozin to treat patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but without diabetes until this indication receives regulatory approval, and even then using dapagliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors this way may take some getting used to on the part of cardiologists and other clinicians.

“The results put dapagliflozin in the same league as [standard HFrEF drugs], but using it will require a shift in thinking. Most physicians will initially say “aren’t SGLT2 inhibitors used for treating diabetes?” Dr. Bhatt said.

“I’m sure most cardiologists are not familiar with the SGLT2 inhibitors; we’ll have to educate them,” conceded Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow. However, other aspects of dapagliflozin and this drug class in general may make the SGLT2 inhibitors particularly attractive and spur their use once labeling changes.

[email protected]

Here are 5 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. No birth rate gains from levothyroxine in pregnancy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZoXzK8
Expires March 23, 2020

2. Simple screening for risk of falling in elderly can guide prevention

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NKXxu3
Expires March 24, 2020

3. Time to revisit fasting rules for surgery patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HHwHiD
Expires March 26, 2020

4. Four biomarkers could distinguish psoriatic arthritis from osteoarthritis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/344WPNS
Expires March 28, 2020

5. More chest compression–only CPR leads to increased survival rates

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30CahGF
Expires April 1, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. No birth rate gains from levothyroxine in pregnancy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZoXzK8
Expires March 23, 2020

2. Simple screening for risk of falling in elderly can guide prevention

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NKXxu3
Expires March 24, 2020

3. Time to revisit fasting rules for surgery patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HHwHiD
Expires March 26, 2020

4. Four biomarkers could distinguish psoriatic arthritis from osteoarthritis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/344WPNS
Expires March 28, 2020

5. More chest compression–only CPR leads to increased survival rates

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30CahGF
Expires April 1, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the September issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. No birth rate gains from levothyroxine in pregnancy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ZoXzK8
Expires March 23, 2020

2. Simple screening for risk of falling in elderly can guide prevention

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2NKXxu3
Expires March 24, 2020

3. Time to revisit fasting rules for surgery patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HHwHiD
Expires March 26, 2020

4. Four biomarkers could distinguish psoriatic arthritis from osteoarthritis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/344WPNS
Expires March 28, 2020

5. More chest compression–only CPR leads to increased survival rates

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30CahGF
Expires April 1, 2020

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

PARIS – Patients with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes saw fewer ischemic cardiovascular events when they received dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin, though they also had more major bleeding events than patients receiving placebo plus aspirin.

The subset of patients who had received prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) stood to benefit more from extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), according to clinical trial results presented to an overflow crowd at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Findings from the full study, named The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS), and from the PCI subgroup analysis were published concurrently with the presentation (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2).

“This strategy of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy may be beneficial in selected patients at low risk of bleeding, but at high risk of ischemic events,” said the study’s co-principal investigator Deepak Bhatt, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In a video interview, he hypothesized that “prior PCI may serve as a sort of ‘stress test’ for bleeding,” thus identifying a subset of patients who might benefit from long-term DAPT.

Ischemic events, the primary efficacy outcome of THEMIS, occurred in 7.7% of patients taking the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor and 8.5% of those receiving placebo, for a hazard ratio of 0.90 favoring ticagrelor (P = .04). Ischemic events included cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions (MIs), and stroke.

Looking at secondary endpoints, Dr. Bhatt said that there was no difference in cardiovascular deaths between study arms, but that ischemic strokes, all MIs, and ST segment elevation MIs were all less common for patients taking ticagrelor. All-cause mortality was similar between study groups.

Though ischemic events dropped, “This benefit was achieved at the expense of more bleeding,” said Dr. Bhatt. Major bleeding, the primary safety outcome, was seen in 2.2% of those taking ticagrelor and 1.0% of the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 2.32 (P less than .001). Dr. Bhatt and his collaborators used the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding for ascertainment of this outcome.

Intracranial hemorrhage was also more common for patients on ticagrelor, though incidence was low and the absolute difference was small between groups. This complication occurred in 0.7% of ticagrelor patients and 0.5% of placebo patients, yielding a hazard ratio of 1.71 (P = .0005). “This excess wasn’t in spontaneous or procedural intracranial bleeding, but rather in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage,” said Dr. Bhatt.

Fatal bleeds affected just 0.2% of those on ticagrelor and 0.1% of those receiving placebo; this difference wasn’t statistically significant.

koakes@mdedgecom

Source: Steg PG et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908077; Bhatt DL et al.Lancet. 2019 Sep 1: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2)

Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who discontinued denosumab treatment after achieving osteopenia maintained bone mineral density at the spine and hip with a single infusion of zoledronate given 6 months after the last infusion of denosumab, according to results from a small, multicenter, randomized trial published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The cessation of the monoclonal antibody denosumab is typically followed by a “rebound phenomenon” often attributed to an increase in bone turnover above pretreatment values caused by the up-regulation of osteoclastogenesis, according to Athanasios D. Anastasilakis, MD, of 424 General Military Hospital, Thessaloníki, Greece, and colleagues. Guidelines recommend that patients take a bisphosphonate to prevent this effect, but the optimal bisphosphonate regimen is unknown and evidence is inconsistent.

To address this question, the investigators randomized 57 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who had received six monthly injections of denosumab (for an average of 2.2 years) and had achieved nonosteoporotic bone mineral density (BMD) T scores greater than –2.5 but no greater than –1 at the hip or the spine. A total of 27 received a single IV infusion of zoledronate 5 mg given 6 months after the last denosumab injection with a 3-week window, and 30 continued denosumab and received two additional monthly 60-mg injections. Following either the zoledronate infusion or the last denosumab injection, all women received no treatment and were followed until 2 years from randomization. All women were given vitamin D supplements and were seen in clinic appointments at baseline, 6, 12, 15, 18, and 24 months.

Areal BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck of the nondominant hip were measured at baseline, 12, and 24 months by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and least significant changes were 5% or less at the spine and 4% or less at the femoral neck, based on proposals from the International Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation USA.

At 24 months, lumbar spine BMD (LS‐BMD) returned to baseline in the zoledronate group, but decreased in the denosumab group by 4.82% from the 12‐month value (P less than .001).

The difference in LS-BMD changes between the two groups from month 12 to 24, the primary endpoint of the study, was statistically significant (–0.018 with zoledronate vs. –0.045 with denosumab; P = .025). Differences in changes of femoral neck BMD were also statistically significant (–0.004 with zoledronate vs. –0.038 with denosumab; P = .005), the researchers reported.

The differences in BMD changes between the two groups 24 and 12 months after discontinuation of denosumab (6 months after the last injection) for the zoledronate and denosumab group respectively were also statistically significant both at the lumbar spine (–0.002 with zoledronate vs. –0.045 with denosumab; P = .03) and at the femoral neck (–0.004 with zoledronate vs. –0.038 with denosumab; P = .007).

The authors observed no relationship between the number of denosumab injections and LS-BMD changes in either group of women; however, they noted that responses of individual patients to zoledronate were variable. For example, three women who took zoledronate experienced decreases of LS-BMD greater than the least significant change observed at 24 months, a finding which could not be explained by the timing of the infusion, baseline rate of bone turnover, or baseline BMD.

“It appears that intrinsic factors that still need to be defined may affect the response of a few individuals,” they wrote.

This was further illustrated by one patient in the zoledronate group who sustained clinical vertebral fractures associated with significant, unexplained decreases of BMD that could not be prevented with the zoledronate infusion.

“In clinical practice, it is, therefore, advisable to measure BMD at 12 months after the zoledronate infusion and decide whether additional treatment may be required,” the authors wrote.

Another significant finding reported by the authors was that neither baseline nor 12‐month bone turnover marker (BTM) values were associated with BMD changes in either group of women during the entire study period.

“Particularly important for clinical practice was the lack of a relationship in zoledronate-treated women; even when women were divided according to baseline median BTM values (below or above) there were no significant difference in BMD changes at 12 or 24 months,” they wrote.

“In a substantial number of women in the denosumab group BTMs were still above the upper limit of normal of the postmenopausal age 18 months after the last Dmab [denosumab] injection but also in 7.4% of patients treated with zoledronate at 2 years,” they added.

“Whether in the latter patients BTMs were also increased before the start of Dmab treatment, as it is known to occur in some patients with osteoporosis, or are due to a prolonged effect of Dmab withdrawal on bone metabolism could not be prevented by zoledronate, is not known because pretreatment data were not available,” the study authors noted.

For adverse events, in addition to the one patient in the zoledronate group with clinical vertebral fractures, three patients in the denosumab group sustained vertebral fractures.

“Prevalent vertebral fractures have been previously reported as the most important risk factor for clinical vertebral fractures following cessation of Dmab therapy [which] strongly suggest that spine x-rays should be performed in all patients in whom discontinuation of Dmab treatment is considered,” the authors wrote.

“In most women with postmenopausal osteoporosis treated with [denosumab] in whom discontinuation of treatment is considered when a nonosteoporotic BMD is achieved, a single intravenous infusion of zoledronate 5 mg given 6 months after the last Dmab injection prevents bone loss for at least 2 years independently of the rate of bone turnover. Follow-up is recommended, as in a few patients treatment might not have the expected effect at 2 years for currently unknown reasons,” they concluded.

The study was funded by institutional funds and the Hellenic Endocrine Society. Several authors reported receiving consulting or lecture fees from Amgen, which markets denosumab, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Anastasilakis A et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3853.

Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who discontinued denosumab treatment after achieving osteopenia maintained bone mineral density at the spine and hip with a single infusion of zoledronate given 6 months after the last infusion of denosumab, according to results from a small, multicenter, randomized trial published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The cessation of the monoclonal antibody denosumab is typically followed by a “rebound phenomenon” often attributed to an increase in bone turnover above pretreatment values caused by the up-regulation of osteoclastogenesis, according to Athanasios D. Anastasilakis, MD, of 424 General Military Hospital, Thessaloníki, Greece, and colleagues. Guidelines recommend that patients take a bisphosphonate to prevent this effect, but the optimal bisphosphonate regimen is unknown and evidence is inconsistent.

To address this question, the investigators randomized 57 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who had received six monthly injections of denosumab (for an average of 2.2 years) and had achieved nonosteoporotic bone mineral density (BMD) T scores greater than –2.5 but no greater than –1 at the hip or the spine. A total of 27 received a single IV infusion of zoledronate 5 mg given 6 months after the last denosumab injection with a 3-week window, and 30 continued denosumab and received two additional monthly 60-mg injections. Following either the zoledronate infusion or the last denosumab injection, all women received no treatment and were followed until 2 years from randomization. All women were given vitamin D supplements and were seen in clinic appointments at baseline, 6, 12, 15, 18, and 24 months.

Areal BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck of the nondominant hip were measured at baseline, 12, and 24 months by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and least significant changes were 5% or less at the spine and 4% or less at the femoral neck, based on proposals from the International Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation USA.

At 24 months, lumbar spine BMD (LS‐BMD) returned to baseline in the zoledronate group, but decreased in the denosumab group by 4.82% from the 12‐month value (P less than .001).

The difference in LS-BMD changes between the two groups from month 12 to 24, the primary endpoint of the study, was statistically significant (–0.018 with zoledronate vs. –0.045 with denosumab; P = .025). Differences in changes of femoral neck BMD were also statistically significant (–0.004 with zoledronate vs. –0.038 with denosumab; P = .005), the researchers reported.

The differences in BMD changes between the two groups 24 and 12 months after discontinuation of denosumab (6 months after the last injection) for the zoledronate and denosumab group respectively were also statistically significant both at the lumbar spine (–0.002 with zoledronate vs. –0.045 with denosumab; P = .03) and at the femoral neck (–0.004 with zoledronate vs. –0.038 with denosumab; P = .007).

The authors observed no relationship between the number of denosumab injections and LS-BMD changes in either group of women; however, they noted that responses of individual patients to zoledronate were variable. For example, three women who took zoledronate experienced decreases of LS-BMD greater than the least significant change observed at 24 months, a finding which could not be explained by the timing of the infusion, baseline rate of bone turnover, or baseline BMD.

“It appears that intrinsic factors that still need to be defined may affect the response of a few individuals,” they wrote.

This was further illustrated by one patient in the zoledronate group who sustained clinical vertebral fractures associated with significant, unexplained decreases of BMD that could not be prevented with the zoledronate infusion.

“In clinical practice, it is, therefore, advisable to measure BMD at 12 months after the zoledronate infusion and decide whether additional treatment may be required,” the authors wrote.

Another significant finding reported by the authors was that neither baseline nor 12‐month bone turnover marker (BTM) values were associated with BMD changes in either group of women during the entire study period.

“Particularly important for clinical practice was the lack of a relationship in zoledronate-treated women; even when women were divided according to baseline median BTM values (below or above) there were no significant difference in BMD changes at 12 or 24 months,” they wrote.

“In a substantial number of women in the denosumab group BTMs were still above the upper limit of normal of the postmenopausal age 18 months after the last Dmab [denosumab] injection but also in 7.4% of patients treated with zoledronate at 2 years,” they added.

“Whether in the latter patients BTMs were also increased before the start of Dmab treatment, as it is known to occur in some patients with osteoporosis, or are due to a prolonged effect of Dmab withdrawal on bone metabolism could not be prevented by zoledronate, is not known because pretreatment data were not available,” the study authors noted.

For adverse events, in addition to the one patient in the zoledronate group with clinical vertebral fractures, three patients in the denosumab group sustained vertebral fractures.

“Prevalent vertebral fractures have been previously reported as the most important risk factor for clinical vertebral fractures following cessation of Dmab therapy [which] strongly suggest that spine x-rays should be performed in all patients in whom discontinuation of Dmab treatment is considered,” the authors wrote.

“In most women with postmenopausal osteoporosis treated with [denosumab] in whom discontinuation of treatment is considered when a nonosteoporotic BMD is achieved, a single intravenous infusion of zoledronate 5 mg given 6 months after the last Dmab injection prevents bone loss for at least 2 years independently of the rate of bone turnover. Follow-up is recommended, as in a few patients treatment might not have the expected effect at 2 years for currently unknown reasons,” they concluded.

The study was funded by institutional funds and the Hellenic Endocrine Society. Several authors reported receiving consulting or lecture fees from Amgen, which markets denosumab, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Anastasilakis A et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3853.

Women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who discontinued denosumab treatment after achieving osteopenia maintained bone mineral density at the spine and hip with a single infusion of zoledronate given 6 months after the last infusion of denosumab, according to results from a small, multicenter, randomized trial published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The cessation of the monoclonal antibody denosumab is typically followed by a “rebound phenomenon” often attributed to an increase in bone turnover above pretreatment values caused by the up-regulation of osteoclastogenesis, according to Athanasios D. Anastasilakis, MD, of 424 General Military Hospital, Thessaloníki, Greece, and colleagues. Guidelines recommend that patients take a bisphosphonate to prevent this effect, but the optimal bisphosphonate regimen is unknown and evidence is inconsistent.

To address this question, the investigators randomized 57 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who had received six monthly injections of denosumab (for an average of 2.2 years) and had achieved nonosteoporotic bone mineral density (BMD) T scores greater than –2.5 but no greater than –1 at the hip or the spine. A total of 27 received a single IV infusion of zoledronate 5 mg given 6 months after the last denosumab injection with a 3-week window, and 30 continued denosumab and received two additional monthly 60-mg injections. Following either the zoledronate infusion or the last denosumab injection, all women received no treatment and were followed until 2 years from randomization. All women were given vitamin D supplements and were seen in clinic appointments at baseline, 6, 12, 15, 18, and 24 months.

Areal BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck of the nondominant hip were measured at baseline, 12, and 24 months by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and least significant changes were 5% or less at the spine and 4% or less at the femoral neck, based on proposals from the International Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation USA.

At 24 months, lumbar spine BMD (LS‐BMD) returned to baseline in the zoledronate group, but decreased in the denosumab group by 4.82% from the 12‐month value (P less than .001).

The difference in LS-BMD changes between the two groups from month 12 to 24, the primary endpoint of the study, was statistically significant (–0.018 with zoledronate vs. –0.045 with denosumab; P = .025). Differences in changes of femoral neck BMD were also statistically significant (–0.004 with zoledronate vs. –0.038 with denosumab; P = .005), the researchers reported.

The differences in BMD changes between the two groups 24 and 12 months after discontinuation of denosumab (6 months after the last injection) for the zoledronate and denosumab group respectively were also statistically significant both at the lumbar spine (–0.002 with zoledronate vs. –0.045 with denosumab; P = .03) and at the femoral neck (–0.004 with zoledronate vs. –0.038 with denosumab; P = .007).

The authors observed no relationship between the number of denosumab injections and LS-BMD changes in either group of women; however, they noted that responses of individual patients to zoledronate were variable. For example, three women who took zoledronate experienced decreases of LS-BMD greater than the least significant change observed at 24 months, a finding which could not be explained by the timing of the infusion, baseline rate of bone turnover, or baseline BMD.

“It appears that intrinsic factors that still need to be defined may affect the response of a few individuals,” they wrote.

This was further illustrated by one patient in the zoledronate group who sustained clinical vertebral fractures associated with significant, unexplained decreases of BMD that could not be prevented with the zoledronate infusion.

“In clinical practice, it is, therefore, advisable to measure BMD at 12 months after the zoledronate infusion and decide whether additional treatment may be required,” the authors wrote.

Another significant finding reported by the authors was that neither baseline nor 12‐month bone turnover marker (BTM) values were associated with BMD changes in either group of women during the entire study period.

“Particularly important for clinical practice was the lack of a relationship in zoledronate-treated women; even when women were divided according to baseline median BTM values (below or above) there were no significant difference in BMD changes at 12 or 24 months,” they wrote.

“In a substantial number of women in the denosumab group BTMs were still above the upper limit of normal of the postmenopausal age 18 months after the last Dmab [denosumab] injection but also in 7.4% of patients treated with zoledronate at 2 years,” they added.

“Whether in the latter patients BTMs were also increased before the start of Dmab treatment, as it is known to occur in some patients with osteoporosis, or are due to a prolonged effect of Dmab withdrawal on bone metabolism could not be prevented by zoledronate, is not known because pretreatment data were not available,” the study authors noted.

For adverse events, in addition to the one patient in the zoledronate group with clinical vertebral fractures, three patients in the denosumab group sustained vertebral fractures.

“Prevalent vertebral fractures have been previously reported as the most important risk factor for clinical vertebral fractures following cessation of Dmab therapy [which] strongly suggest that spine x-rays should be performed in all patients in whom discontinuation of Dmab treatment is considered,” the authors wrote.

“In most women with postmenopausal osteoporosis treated with [denosumab] in whom discontinuation of treatment is considered when a nonosteoporotic BMD is achieved, a single intravenous infusion of zoledronate 5 mg given 6 months after the last Dmab injection prevents bone loss for at least 2 years independently of the rate of bone turnover. Follow-up is recommended, as in a few patients treatment might not have the expected effect at 2 years for currently unknown reasons,” they concluded.

The study was funded by institutional funds and the Hellenic Endocrine Society. Several authors reported receiving consulting or lecture fees from Amgen, which markets denosumab, as well as other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Anastasilakis A et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Aug 21. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3853.

High-dose vitamin D supplementation provides no benefit for maintaining bone quality in healthy older adults without osteoporosis, findings from a 3-year, randomized clinical trial suggest.

Irina Shisterova/Getty Images

In fact, rather than a hypothesized increase in volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) with doses well above the recommended dietary allowance, a negative dose-response relationship was observed, Lauren A. Burt, PhD, of the McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues found.

The total volumetric radial BMD was significantly lower in 101 and 97 study participants randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ doses of 10,000 IU or 4,000 IU for 3 years, respectively (–7.5 and –3.9 mg of calcium hydroxyapatite [HA] per cm³), compared with 105 participants randomized to a reference group that received 400 IU (mean percent changes, –3.5%, –2.4%, and –1.2%, respectively). Total volumetric tibial BMD was also significantly lower in the 10,000 IU arm, compared with the reference arm (–4.1 mg HA per cm³; mean percent change –1.7% vs. –0.4%), the investigators reported Aug. 27 in JAMA.

There also were no significant differences seen between the three groups for the coprimary endpoint of bone strength at either the radius or tibia.

Participants in the double-blind trial were community-dwelling healthy men and women aged 55-70 years (mean age, 62.2 years) without osteoporosis and with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) of 30-125 nmol/L. They were enrolled from a single center between August 2013 and December 2017 and treated with daily oral vitamin D₃ drops at the assigned dosage for 3 years and with calcium supplementation if dietary calcium intake was less than 1,200 mg daily.

Mean supplementation adherence was 99% among the 303 participants who completed the trial (out of 311 enrolled), and adherence was similar across the groups.

Baseline 25(OH)D levels in the 400 IU group were 76.3 nmol/L at baseline, 76.7 nmol/L at 3 months, and 77.4 nmol/L at 3 years. The corresponding measures for the 4,000 IU group were 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 nmol/L, and for the 10,000 IU group, they were 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4, the investigators said, noting that significant group-by-time interactions were noted for volumetric BMD.

Bone strength decreased over time, but group-by-time interactions for that measure were not statistically significant, they said.

A total of 44 serious adverse events occurred in 38 participants (12.2%), and one death from presumed myocardial infarction occurred in the 400 IU group. Of eight prespecified adverse events, only hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria had significant dose-response effects; all episodes of hypercalcemia were mild and had resolved at follow-up, and the two hypercalcemia events, which occurred in one participant in the 10,000 IU group, were also transient. No significant difference in fall rates was seen in the three groups, they noted.

Vitamin D is considered beneficial for preventing and treating osteoporosis, and data support supplementation in individuals with 25(OH)D levels less than 30 nmol/L, but recent meta-analyses did not find a major treatment benefit for osteoporosis or for preventing falls and fractures, the investigators said.

Further, while most supplementation recommendations call for 400-2,000 IU daily, with a tolerable upper intake level of 4,000-10,000 IU, 3% of U.S. adults in 2013-2014 reported intake of at least 4,000 IU per day, but few studies have assessed the effects of doses at or above the upper intake level for 12 months or longer, they noted, adding that this study was “motivated by the prevalence of high-dose vitamin D supplementation among healthy adults.”

“It was hypothesized that a higher dose of vitamin D has a positive effect on high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT measures of volumetric density and strength, perhaps via suppression of parathyroid hormone (PTH)–mediated bone turnover,” they wrote.

However, based on the significantly lower radial BMD seen with both 4,000 and 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; the lower tibial BMD with 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; and the lack of a difference in bone strength at the radius and tibia, the findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health, they said, noting that additional study is needed to determine whether such doses are harmful.

“Because these results are in the opposite direction of the research hypothesis, this evidence of high-dose vitamin D having a negative effect on bone should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burt L et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):736-45.

High-dose vitamin D supplementation provides no benefit for maintaining bone quality in healthy older adults without osteoporosis, findings from a 3-year, randomized clinical trial suggest.

Irina Shisterova/Getty Images

In fact, rather than a hypothesized increase in volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) with doses well above the recommended dietary allowance, a negative dose-response relationship was observed, Lauren A. Burt, PhD, of the McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues found.

The total volumetric radial BMD was significantly lower in 101 and 97 study participants randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ doses of 10,000 IU or 4,000 IU for 3 years, respectively (–7.5 and –3.9 mg of calcium hydroxyapatite [HA] per cm³), compared with 105 participants randomized to a reference group that received 400 IU (mean percent changes, –3.5%, –2.4%, and –1.2%, respectively). Total volumetric tibial BMD was also significantly lower in the 10,000 IU arm, compared with the reference arm (–4.1 mg HA per cm³; mean percent change –1.7% vs. –0.4%), the investigators reported Aug. 27 in JAMA.

There also were no significant differences seen between the three groups for the coprimary endpoint of bone strength at either the radius or tibia.

Participants in the double-blind trial were community-dwelling healthy men and women aged 55-70 years (mean age, 62.2 years) without osteoporosis and with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) of 30-125 nmol/L. They were enrolled from a single center between August 2013 and December 2017 and treated with daily oral vitamin D₃ drops at the assigned dosage for 3 years and with calcium supplementation if dietary calcium intake was less than 1,200 mg daily.

Mean supplementation adherence was 99% among the 303 participants who completed the trial (out of 311 enrolled), and adherence was similar across the groups.

Baseline 25(OH)D levels in the 400 IU group were 76.3 nmol/L at baseline, 76.7 nmol/L at 3 months, and 77.4 nmol/L at 3 years. The corresponding measures for the 4,000 IU group were 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 nmol/L, and for the 10,000 IU group, they were 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4, the investigators said, noting that significant group-by-time interactions were noted for volumetric BMD.

Bone strength decreased over time, but group-by-time interactions for that measure were not statistically significant, they said.

A total of 44 serious adverse events occurred in 38 participants (12.2%), and one death from presumed myocardial infarction occurred in the 400 IU group. Of eight prespecified adverse events, only hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria had significant dose-response effects; all episodes of hypercalcemia were mild and had resolved at follow-up, and the two hypercalcemia events, which occurred in one participant in the 10,000 IU group, were also transient. No significant difference in fall rates was seen in the three groups, they noted.

Vitamin D is considered beneficial for preventing and treating osteoporosis, and data support supplementation in individuals with 25(OH)D levels less than 30 nmol/L, but recent meta-analyses did not find a major treatment benefit for osteoporosis or for preventing falls and fractures, the investigators said.

Further, while most supplementation recommendations call for 400-2,000 IU daily, with a tolerable upper intake level of 4,000-10,000 IU, 3% of U.S. adults in 2013-2014 reported intake of at least 4,000 IU per day, but few studies have assessed the effects of doses at or above the upper intake level for 12 months or longer, they noted, adding that this study was “motivated by the prevalence of high-dose vitamin D supplementation among healthy adults.”

“It was hypothesized that a higher dose of vitamin D has a positive effect on high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT measures of volumetric density and strength, perhaps via suppression of parathyroid hormone (PTH)–mediated bone turnover,” they wrote.

However, based on the significantly lower radial BMD seen with both 4,000 and 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; the lower tibial BMD with 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; and the lack of a difference in bone strength at the radius and tibia, the findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health, they said, noting that additional study is needed to determine whether such doses are harmful.

“Because these results are in the opposite direction of the research hypothesis, this evidence of high-dose vitamin D having a negative effect on bone should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burt L et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):736-45.

High-dose vitamin D supplementation provides no benefit for maintaining bone quality in healthy older adults without osteoporosis, findings from a 3-year, randomized clinical trial suggest.

Irina Shisterova/Getty Images

In fact, rather than a hypothesized increase in volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) with doses well above the recommended dietary allowance, a negative dose-response relationship was observed, Lauren A. Burt, PhD, of the McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues found.

The total volumetric radial BMD was significantly lower in 101 and 97 study participants randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ doses of 10,000 IU or 4,000 IU for 3 years, respectively (–7.5 and –3.9 mg of calcium hydroxyapatite [HA] per cm³), compared with 105 participants randomized to a reference group that received 400 IU (mean percent changes, –3.5%, –2.4%, and –1.2%, respectively). Total volumetric tibial BMD was also significantly lower in the 10,000 IU arm, compared with the reference arm (–4.1 mg HA per cm³; mean percent change –1.7% vs. –0.4%), the investigators reported Aug. 27 in JAMA.

There also were no significant differences seen between the three groups for the coprimary endpoint of bone strength at either the radius or tibia.

Participants in the double-blind trial were community-dwelling healthy men and women aged 55-70 years (mean age, 62.2 years) without osteoporosis and with baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) of 30-125 nmol/L. They were enrolled from a single center between August 2013 and December 2017 and treated with daily oral vitamin D₃ drops at the assigned dosage for 3 years and with calcium supplementation if dietary calcium intake was less than 1,200 mg daily.

Mean supplementation adherence was 99% among the 303 participants who completed the trial (out of 311 enrolled), and adherence was similar across the groups.

Baseline 25(OH)D levels in the 400 IU group were 76.3 nmol/L at baseline, 76.7 nmol/L at 3 months, and 77.4 nmol/L at 3 years. The corresponding measures for the 4,000 IU group were 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 nmol/L, and for the 10,000 IU group, they were 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4, the investigators said, noting that significant group-by-time interactions were noted for volumetric BMD.

Bone strength decreased over time, but group-by-time interactions for that measure were not statistically significant, they said.

A total of 44 serious adverse events occurred in 38 participants (12.2%), and one death from presumed myocardial infarction occurred in the 400 IU group. Of eight prespecified adverse events, only hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria had significant dose-response effects; all episodes of hypercalcemia were mild and had resolved at follow-up, and the two hypercalcemia events, which occurred in one participant in the 10,000 IU group, were also transient. No significant difference in fall rates was seen in the three groups, they noted.

Vitamin D is considered beneficial for preventing and treating osteoporosis, and data support supplementation in individuals with 25(OH)D levels less than 30 nmol/L, but recent meta-analyses did not find a major treatment benefit for osteoporosis or for preventing falls and fractures, the investigators said.

Further, while most supplementation recommendations call for 400-2,000 IU daily, with a tolerable upper intake level of 4,000-10,000 IU, 3% of U.S. adults in 2013-2014 reported intake of at least 4,000 IU per day, but few studies have assessed the effects of doses at or above the upper intake level for 12 months or longer, they noted, adding that this study was “motivated by the prevalence of high-dose vitamin D supplementation among healthy adults.”

“It was hypothesized that a higher dose of vitamin D has a positive effect on high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT measures of volumetric density and strength, perhaps via suppression of parathyroid hormone (PTH)–mediated bone turnover,” they wrote.

However, based on the significantly lower radial BMD seen with both 4,000 and 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; the lower tibial BMD with 10,000 IU, compared with 400 IU; and the lack of a difference in bone strength at the radius and tibia, the findings do not support a benefit of high-dose vitamin D supplementation for bone health, they said, noting that additional study is needed to determine whether such doses are harmful.

“Because these results are in the opposite direction of the research hypothesis, this evidence of high-dose vitamin D having a negative effect on bone should be regarded as hypothesis generating, requiring confirmation with further research,” they concluded.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Burt L et al. JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):736-45.