User login
In reply: Gastroparesis
In Reply: We thank the readers for their letter. Our patient’s laboratory values at the time of presentation were as follows:
- Corrected sodium 142 mmol/L
- Potassium 5.5 mmol/L
- Phosphorus 6.6 mmol/L.
The rest of the electrolyte levels were within normal limits.
These reported electrolyte levels were unlikely to cause such gastroparesis. The patient’s hemoglobin A1c was 8.7% at the time of presentation, with no previous values available. However, since abdominal computed tomography done 1 year before this presentation did not show stomach dilation and the patient was asymptomatic, his gastroparesis was presumed to be acute.
In Reply: We thank the readers for their letter. Our patient’s laboratory values at the time of presentation were as follows:
- Corrected sodium 142 mmol/L
- Potassium 5.5 mmol/L
- Phosphorus 6.6 mmol/L.
The rest of the electrolyte levels were within normal limits.
These reported electrolyte levels were unlikely to cause such gastroparesis. The patient’s hemoglobin A1c was 8.7% at the time of presentation, with no previous values available. However, since abdominal computed tomography done 1 year before this presentation did not show stomach dilation and the patient was asymptomatic, his gastroparesis was presumed to be acute.
In Reply: We thank the readers for their letter. Our patient’s laboratory values at the time of presentation were as follows:
- Corrected sodium 142 mmol/L
- Potassium 5.5 mmol/L
- Phosphorus 6.6 mmol/L.
The rest of the electrolyte levels were within normal limits.
These reported electrolyte levels were unlikely to cause such gastroparesis. The patient’s hemoglobin A1c was 8.7% at the time of presentation, with no previous values available. However, since abdominal computed tomography done 1 year before this presentation did not show stomach dilation and the patient was asymptomatic, his gastroparesis was presumed to be acute.
Hypothyroidism may have more impact on cardiac health than hyperthyroidism
ORLANDO – Thyroid disorders can have significant effects on the heart and the cardiovascular system, Christine Kessler, MN, ANP-C, CNS, BC-ADM, FAANP, said at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Even subclinical hypothyroidism “can be really impactful,” said Ms. Kessler, the founder of Metabolic Medicine Associates in King George, Va.
Thyroid function should be evaluated in patients with a fast resting heart fate, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), idiopathic heart failure, bradycardia, using amiodarone, resistant hypertension, pericardial effusion, and statin-resistant hyperlipidemia, said Ms. Kessler, who also is a nurse practitioner and researcher. Other patients who should be evaluated: those older than 60 years, with a family history of autoimmune disease, fertility issues, new-onset anxiety/depression, and patients with high-risk pregnancy. Hypothyroidism may have more impact on cardiac health than does hyperthyroidism.
Levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), triiodothyronine (T3), and free thyroxine (FT4) are typically used to evaluate thyroid function. High TSH levels are usually indicative of hypothyroidism if FT4 and T3 are low; hyperthyroidism is likely the diagnosis if TSH is low while FT4 and T3 are high. Subclinical hypothyroidism is characterized by high TSH and normal FT4 and T3 levels; subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with low TSH with normal FT4 and T3 levels.*
Hypothyroidism can cause increased diastolic hypertension and systemic vascular resistance, elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and homocysteine, decreased myocardial contractility, decreased cardiac output, reduced heart rate, and liver function abnormalities. Most commonly, it is caused by the autoimmune disease Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism but also can result from radiation, thyroidectomy, nontoxic multinodular goiter, and drugs with antithyroid activity such as birth control medications that contain estrogen. Hypothyroidism also raises the risk of coronary artery disease through lipid aberrations such as increased LDL level and decreased number of LDL cholesterol receptors. Myocardial contractility from hypothyroidism also increases the risk of mortality in patients with heart disease and heart failure. Clinicians also should take special precautions with narcotics and anesthesia when caring for patients with hypothyroidism because of the risk of bradycardia, Ms. Kessler said.
In subclinical hypothyroidism, clinicians should treat with half the recommended dose of levothyroxine in patients aged 45-65 years and who have high levels of lipids and CRP. “At the age of 70, I don’t worry if you’re subclinical unless [the patient is] profoundly, profoundly symptomatic,” she said. In overt hypotension, the main concern is an increased risk of ischemic heart disease that can result from overtreatment, and these patients usually are started on a low dose of levothyroxine with escalated doses until the patient achieves a euthyroid state.
Hyperthyroidism is most commonly caused by Grave’s disease, with 85% of those affected younger than age 40 years. Other causes include toxic multinodular goiter, toxic adenoma, TSH-producing pituitary adenomas, resistance to thyroid hormone, thyroiditis, excessive ingestion of iodine, shrinking of the thyroid gland, and a human chorionic gonadotropin–producing tumor such as struma ovarii. Common cardiac complications of hyperthyroidism are increased heart rate and blood pressure, reduced systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiovascular disease and mortality in addition to increased cardiac hypertrophy, pulmonary hypertension, and heart failure. Heart rhythm, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, increased sinus tachycardia, and increased angina are all possible complications of hyperthyroidism.
Treatment priorities for hyperthyroidism are the immediately relieving any symptoms, reducing thyroid hormone production, and blocking the conversion of T4 to T3. For symptomatic patients, beta-blockers will help relieve symptoms and block the T4/T3 conversion. Follow-up treatment should include antithyroid drugs such as methimazole or propylthiouracil.
Patients who have subclinical hyperthyroidism are usually asymptomatic and may not always require treatment.
“In subclinical hypothyroidism, keep your mitts off the older patients. They’re usually going to do better, and you don’t want to throw them into hyperthyroidism,” she said. “If they’re [experiencing] subclinical hyperthyroidism, you’re going to treat them, because if not, they’re going to go into AFib, cardiovascular death, [and] they’re going to have osteoporosis. It’s not a good thing.”
Ms. Kessler reports being on the speakers bureau and an adviser for Novo Nordisk on obesity, and an adviser for them on type 2 diabetes, as well. She also reports being the study chairperson for the Florajen Patient Trial Program. The Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit is part of Global Academy for Medical Education. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Correction, 7/31/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the definition of subclinical hypothyroidism.
ORLANDO – Thyroid disorders can have significant effects on the heart and the cardiovascular system, Christine Kessler, MN, ANP-C, CNS, BC-ADM, FAANP, said at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Even subclinical hypothyroidism “can be really impactful,” said Ms. Kessler, the founder of Metabolic Medicine Associates in King George, Va.
Thyroid function should be evaluated in patients with a fast resting heart fate, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), idiopathic heart failure, bradycardia, using amiodarone, resistant hypertension, pericardial effusion, and statin-resistant hyperlipidemia, said Ms. Kessler, who also is a nurse practitioner and researcher. Other patients who should be evaluated: those older than 60 years, with a family history of autoimmune disease, fertility issues, new-onset anxiety/depression, and patients with high-risk pregnancy. Hypothyroidism may have more impact on cardiac health than does hyperthyroidism.
Levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), triiodothyronine (T3), and free thyroxine (FT4) are typically used to evaluate thyroid function. High TSH levels are usually indicative of hypothyroidism if FT4 and T3 are low; hyperthyroidism is likely the diagnosis if TSH is low while FT4 and T3 are high. Subclinical hypothyroidism is characterized by high TSH and normal FT4 and T3 levels; subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with low TSH with normal FT4 and T3 levels.*
Hypothyroidism can cause increased diastolic hypertension and systemic vascular resistance, elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and homocysteine, decreased myocardial contractility, decreased cardiac output, reduced heart rate, and liver function abnormalities. Most commonly, it is caused by the autoimmune disease Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism but also can result from radiation, thyroidectomy, nontoxic multinodular goiter, and drugs with antithyroid activity such as birth control medications that contain estrogen. Hypothyroidism also raises the risk of coronary artery disease through lipid aberrations such as increased LDL level and decreased number of LDL cholesterol receptors. Myocardial contractility from hypothyroidism also increases the risk of mortality in patients with heart disease and heart failure. Clinicians also should take special precautions with narcotics and anesthesia when caring for patients with hypothyroidism because of the risk of bradycardia, Ms. Kessler said.
In subclinical hypothyroidism, clinicians should treat with half the recommended dose of levothyroxine in patients aged 45-65 years and who have high levels of lipids and CRP. “At the age of 70, I don’t worry if you’re subclinical unless [the patient is] profoundly, profoundly symptomatic,” she said. In overt hypotension, the main concern is an increased risk of ischemic heart disease that can result from overtreatment, and these patients usually are started on a low dose of levothyroxine with escalated doses until the patient achieves a euthyroid state.
Hyperthyroidism is most commonly caused by Grave’s disease, with 85% of those affected younger than age 40 years. Other causes include toxic multinodular goiter, toxic adenoma, TSH-producing pituitary adenomas, resistance to thyroid hormone, thyroiditis, excessive ingestion of iodine, shrinking of the thyroid gland, and a human chorionic gonadotropin–producing tumor such as struma ovarii. Common cardiac complications of hyperthyroidism are increased heart rate and blood pressure, reduced systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiovascular disease and mortality in addition to increased cardiac hypertrophy, pulmonary hypertension, and heart failure. Heart rhythm, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, increased sinus tachycardia, and increased angina are all possible complications of hyperthyroidism.
Treatment priorities for hyperthyroidism are the immediately relieving any symptoms, reducing thyroid hormone production, and blocking the conversion of T4 to T3. For symptomatic patients, beta-blockers will help relieve symptoms and block the T4/T3 conversion. Follow-up treatment should include antithyroid drugs such as methimazole or propylthiouracil.
Patients who have subclinical hyperthyroidism are usually asymptomatic and may not always require treatment.
“In subclinical hypothyroidism, keep your mitts off the older patients. They’re usually going to do better, and you don’t want to throw them into hyperthyroidism,” she said. “If they’re [experiencing] subclinical hyperthyroidism, you’re going to treat them, because if not, they’re going to go into AFib, cardiovascular death, [and] they’re going to have osteoporosis. It’s not a good thing.”
Ms. Kessler reports being on the speakers bureau and an adviser for Novo Nordisk on obesity, and an adviser for them on type 2 diabetes, as well. She also reports being the study chairperson for the Florajen Patient Trial Program. The Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit is part of Global Academy for Medical Education. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Correction, 7/31/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the definition of subclinical hypothyroidism.
ORLANDO – Thyroid disorders can have significant effects on the heart and the cardiovascular system, Christine Kessler, MN, ANP-C, CNS, BC-ADM, FAANP, said at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.
Even subclinical hypothyroidism “can be really impactful,” said Ms. Kessler, the founder of Metabolic Medicine Associates in King George, Va.
Thyroid function should be evaluated in patients with a fast resting heart fate, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), idiopathic heart failure, bradycardia, using amiodarone, resistant hypertension, pericardial effusion, and statin-resistant hyperlipidemia, said Ms. Kessler, who also is a nurse practitioner and researcher. Other patients who should be evaluated: those older than 60 years, with a family history of autoimmune disease, fertility issues, new-onset anxiety/depression, and patients with high-risk pregnancy. Hypothyroidism may have more impact on cardiac health than does hyperthyroidism.
Levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), triiodothyronine (T3), and free thyroxine (FT4) are typically used to evaluate thyroid function. High TSH levels are usually indicative of hypothyroidism if FT4 and T3 are low; hyperthyroidism is likely the diagnosis if TSH is low while FT4 and T3 are high. Subclinical hypothyroidism is characterized by high TSH and normal FT4 and T3 levels; subclinical hyperthyroidism is associated with low TSH with normal FT4 and T3 levels.*
Hypothyroidism can cause increased diastolic hypertension and systemic vascular resistance, elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and homocysteine, decreased myocardial contractility, decreased cardiac output, reduced heart rate, and liver function abnormalities. Most commonly, it is caused by the autoimmune disease Hashimoto’s hypothyroidism but also can result from radiation, thyroidectomy, nontoxic multinodular goiter, and drugs with antithyroid activity such as birth control medications that contain estrogen. Hypothyroidism also raises the risk of coronary artery disease through lipid aberrations such as increased LDL level and decreased number of LDL cholesterol receptors. Myocardial contractility from hypothyroidism also increases the risk of mortality in patients with heart disease and heart failure. Clinicians also should take special precautions with narcotics and anesthesia when caring for patients with hypothyroidism because of the risk of bradycardia, Ms. Kessler said.
In subclinical hypothyroidism, clinicians should treat with half the recommended dose of levothyroxine in patients aged 45-65 years and who have high levels of lipids and CRP. “At the age of 70, I don’t worry if you’re subclinical unless [the patient is] profoundly, profoundly symptomatic,” she said. In overt hypotension, the main concern is an increased risk of ischemic heart disease that can result from overtreatment, and these patients usually are started on a low dose of levothyroxine with escalated doses until the patient achieves a euthyroid state.
Hyperthyroidism is most commonly caused by Grave’s disease, with 85% of those affected younger than age 40 years. Other causes include toxic multinodular goiter, toxic adenoma, TSH-producing pituitary adenomas, resistance to thyroid hormone, thyroiditis, excessive ingestion of iodine, shrinking of the thyroid gland, and a human chorionic gonadotropin–producing tumor such as struma ovarii. Common cardiac complications of hyperthyroidism are increased heart rate and blood pressure, reduced systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiovascular disease and mortality in addition to increased cardiac hypertrophy, pulmonary hypertension, and heart failure. Heart rhythm, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, increased sinus tachycardia, and increased angina are all possible complications of hyperthyroidism.
Treatment priorities for hyperthyroidism are the immediately relieving any symptoms, reducing thyroid hormone production, and blocking the conversion of T4 to T3. For symptomatic patients, beta-blockers will help relieve symptoms and block the T4/T3 conversion. Follow-up treatment should include antithyroid drugs such as methimazole or propylthiouracil.
Patients who have subclinical hyperthyroidism are usually asymptomatic and may not always require treatment.
“In subclinical hypothyroidism, keep your mitts off the older patients. They’re usually going to do better, and you don’t want to throw them into hyperthyroidism,” she said. “If they’re [experiencing] subclinical hyperthyroidism, you’re going to treat them, because if not, they’re going to go into AFib, cardiovascular death, [and] they’re going to have osteoporosis. It’s not a good thing.”
Ms. Kessler reports being on the speakers bureau and an adviser for Novo Nordisk on obesity, and an adviser for them on type 2 diabetes, as well. She also reports being the study chairperson for the Florajen Patient Trial Program. The Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit is part of Global Academy for Medical Education. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Correction, 7/31/19: An earlier version of this article misstated the definition of subclinical hypothyroidism.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM CARPS 2019
FDA approves Baqsimi nasal powder for emergency hypoglycemia treatment
in patients aged 4 years and older.
Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.
The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.
The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.
“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
in patients aged 4 years and older.
Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.
The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.
The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.
“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
in patients aged 4 years and older.
Injectable glucagon has been approved in the United States for several decades.
The safety and efficacy of the Baqsimi powder was assessed in two studies with adults with diabetes and one with pediatric patients. In all three studies, a single dose of Baqsimi was compared with a single dose of glucagon injection, and Baqsimi adequately raised blood sugar levels in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia.
The most common adverse events associated with Baqsimi include nausea, vomiting, headache, upper respiratory tract irritation, watery eyes, redness of eyes, and itchiness. The safety profile is similar to that of injectable glucagon, with the addition of nasal- and eye-related symptoms because of the method of delivery.
“There are many products on the market for those who need insulin, but until now, people suffering from a severe hypoglycemic episode had to be treated with a glucagon injection that first had to be mixed in a several-step process. This new way to administer glucagon may simplify the process, which can be critical during an episode, especially since the patient may have lost consciousness or may be having a seizure. In those situations, we want the process to treat the suffering person to be as simple as possible,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the FDA website.
Inadequate glycemic control in type 1 diabetes leads to increased fracture risk
A single percentage increase in the level of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes is significantly associated with an increase in fracture risk, according to findings in a study published in Diabetic Medicine.
To determine the effect of glycemic control on fracture risk, Rasiah Thayakaran, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues analyzed data from 5,368 patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom. HbA1c measurements were collected until either fracture or the end of the study, and were then converted from percentages to mmol/mol. Patient age ranged between 1 and 60 years, and the mean age was 22 years.
During 37,830 person‐years of follow‐up, 525 fractures were observed, with an incidence rate of 14 per 1,000 person‐years. The rate among men was 15 per 1,000 person‐years, compared with 12 per 1,000 person‐years among women. There was a significant association between hemoglobin level and risk of fractures (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.007 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval, 1.002-1.011 mmol/mol), representing an increase of 7% in risk for fracture for each percentage increase in hemoglobin level.
“When assessing an individual with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c, increased clinical awareness about the fracture risk may be incorporated in decision‐making regarding the clinical management and even in prompting early antiosteoporotic intervention,” Dr. Thayakaran and coauthors wrote.
The researchers acknowledged the study’s limitations, including a possibility of residual confounding because of their use of observational data. In addition, they could not confirm whether the increase in fracture risk should be attributed to bone fragility or to increased risk of falls. Finally, though they noted using a comprehensive list of codes to identify fractures, they could not verify “completeness of recording ... and therefore reported overall fracture incidence should be interpreted with caution.”
The study was not funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Thayakaran R et al. Diab Med. 2019 Mar 8. doi: 10.1111/dme.13945.
A single percentage increase in the level of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes is significantly associated with an increase in fracture risk, according to findings in a study published in Diabetic Medicine.
To determine the effect of glycemic control on fracture risk, Rasiah Thayakaran, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues analyzed data from 5,368 patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom. HbA1c measurements were collected until either fracture or the end of the study, and were then converted from percentages to mmol/mol. Patient age ranged between 1 and 60 years, and the mean age was 22 years.
During 37,830 person‐years of follow‐up, 525 fractures were observed, with an incidence rate of 14 per 1,000 person‐years. The rate among men was 15 per 1,000 person‐years, compared with 12 per 1,000 person‐years among women. There was a significant association between hemoglobin level and risk of fractures (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.007 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval, 1.002-1.011 mmol/mol), representing an increase of 7% in risk for fracture for each percentage increase in hemoglobin level.
“When assessing an individual with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c, increased clinical awareness about the fracture risk may be incorporated in decision‐making regarding the clinical management and even in prompting early antiosteoporotic intervention,” Dr. Thayakaran and coauthors wrote.
The researchers acknowledged the study’s limitations, including a possibility of residual confounding because of their use of observational data. In addition, they could not confirm whether the increase in fracture risk should be attributed to bone fragility or to increased risk of falls. Finally, though they noted using a comprehensive list of codes to identify fractures, they could not verify “completeness of recording ... and therefore reported overall fracture incidence should be interpreted with caution.”
The study was not funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Thayakaran R et al. Diab Med. 2019 Mar 8. doi: 10.1111/dme.13945.
A single percentage increase in the level of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes is significantly associated with an increase in fracture risk, according to findings in a study published in Diabetic Medicine.
To determine the effect of glycemic control on fracture risk, Rasiah Thayakaran, PhD, of the University of Birmingham (England) and colleagues analyzed data from 5,368 patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes in the United Kingdom. HbA1c measurements were collected until either fracture or the end of the study, and were then converted from percentages to mmol/mol. Patient age ranged between 1 and 60 years, and the mean age was 22 years.
During 37,830 person‐years of follow‐up, 525 fractures were observed, with an incidence rate of 14 per 1,000 person‐years. The rate among men was 15 per 1,000 person‐years, compared with 12 per 1,000 person‐years among women. There was a significant association between hemoglobin level and risk of fractures (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.007 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval, 1.002-1.011 mmol/mol), representing an increase of 7% in risk for fracture for each percentage increase in hemoglobin level.
“When assessing an individual with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c, increased clinical awareness about the fracture risk may be incorporated in decision‐making regarding the clinical management and even in prompting early antiosteoporotic intervention,” Dr. Thayakaran and coauthors wrote.
The researchers acknowledged the study’s limitations, including a possibility of residual confounding because of their use of observational data. In addition, they could not confirm whether the increase in fracture risk should be attributed to bone fragility or to increased risk of falls. Finally, though they noted using a comprehensive list of codes to identify fractures, they could not verify “completeness of recording ... and therefore reported overall fracture incidence should be interpreted with caution.”
The study was not funded. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Thayakaran R et al. Diab Med. 2019 Mar 8. doi: 10.1111/dme.13945.
FROM DIABETIC MEDICINE
CARMELINA confirms linagliptin’s renal, CV safety, but it’s still third-line for type 2 diabetes
SAN FRANCISCO – The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin (Tradjenta) is safe on the kidneys, the cardiovascular system, and in older people with type 2 diabetes, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Investigators in the international Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study with Linagliptin (CARMELINA) randomized 6,979 patients with type 2 diabetes who also had cardiovascular and/or kidney disease 1:1 to daily oral linagliptin 5 mg or placebo on top of standard of care, and they followed them for a median of 2.2 years. The mean age was 65.9 years, baseline hemoglobin A1c was 8.0%, and disease duration was about 15 years. Almost 63% of the patients were men, and about a quarter had a history of heart failure at baseline (JAMA. 2019;321[1]:69-79).
The study was unusual among other DPP-4 trials in that almost 60% of the patients were older than 65 years and 62.3% had impaired renal function with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2.
There was no increased risk with linagliptin, compared with placebo, in the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction (12.4% vs. 12.1%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .74), and there was no difference between the individual components even when broken down by age (younger than 65, 65-75, or older than 75 years) or by renal function (eGFR 60 or more, 45 to less than 60, 30 to less than 45, or less than 30 ml/min per 1.73 m2), according to investigator Mark Cooper, MBBS, PhD, of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, who presented the findings.
There was no increase in the number of hospitalizations for heart failure with linagliptin, compared with placebo (6% vs. 6.5%, respectively; HR, 0.90; P = .26) – a concern with some DPP-4 inhibitors – and no increase in hypoglycemia (just over a quarter in both groups), even when broken down by age and renal function.
A decrease in albuminuria with linagliptin held across all renal subgroups. It is not known if that was because of glucose lowering or some other effect, but Dr. Cooper said he believed there was “a modest renal protective effect, [although] not at the level one would expect to translate into hard renal outcomes.”
Robert Eckel, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who moderated the session, said the results were reassuring. “Ultimately, linagliptin seems safe,” even in older people with reduced eGFR. “It does not improve cardiovascular outcomes, but based on many DPP-4 trials, we didn’t expect it to,” he said.
“I don’t think DPP-4s are going to fall into any different place in the [treatment] algorithm” based on these results, he added. The class is currently third-line after metformin or insulin, followed by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists for cardiovascular protection.
“When we look at [cardiovascular outcomes], ultimately, the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonists win,” he said. In addition, the blood glucose effects of linagliptin are “pretty modest, so if lowering hemoglobin A1c is the focus, this drug would be lower down on the list.”
Overall, linagliptin “falls into a lesser class, but a safe class for certain circumstances,” said Dr. Eckel, who gave the example of a woman in her late 70s with moderate to severe kidney function, an HbA1c level of 7.9%, and no cardiovascular disease. Her HbA1c might get down to 7.6% or so with linagliptin, he said, “but I’m not sure we have absolute proof of the benefit” of such a modest decline.
Boehringer Ingelheim, the maker of linagliptin, funded the study. The presenter disclosed honoraria, speaking fees, and grants from the company. A number of the investigators were employees of the company.
SAN FRANCISCO – The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin (Tradjenta) is safe on the kidneys, the cardiovascular system, and in older people with type 2 diabetes, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Investigators in the international Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study with Linagliptin (CARMELINA) randomized 6,979 patients with type 2 diabetes who also had cardiovascular and/or kidney disease 1:1 to daily oral linagliptin 5 mg or placebo on top of standard of care, and they followed them for a median of 2.2 years. The mean age was 65.9 years, baseline hemoglobin A1c was 8.0%, and disease duration was about 15 years. Almost 63% of the patients were men, and about a quarter had a history of heart failure at baseline (JAMA. 2019;321[1]:69-79).
The study was unusual among other DPP-4 trials in that almost 60% of the patients were older than 65 years and 62.3% had impaired renal function with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2.
There was no increased risk with linagliptin, compared with placebo, in the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction (12.4% vs. 12.1%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .74), and there was no difference between the individual components even when broken down by age (younger than 65, 65-75, or older than 75 years) or by renal function (eGFR 60 or more, 45 to less than 60, 30 to less than 45, or less than 30 ml/min per 1.73 m2), according to investigator Mark Cooper, MBBS, PhD, of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, who presented the findings.
There was no increase in the number of hospitalizations for heart failure with linagliptin, compared with placebo (6% vs. 6.5%, respectively; HR, 0.90; P = .26) – a concern with some DPP-4 inhibitors – and no increase in hypoglycemia (just over a quarter in both groups), even when broken down by age and renal function.
A decrease in albuminuria with linagliptin held across all renal subgroups. It is not known if that was because of glucose lowering or some other effect, but Dr. Cooper said he believed there was “a modest renal protective effect, [although] not at the level one would expect to translate into hard renal outcomes.”
Robert Eckel, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who moderated the session, said the results were reassuring. “Ultimately, linagliptin seems safe,” even in older people with reduced eGFR. “It does not improve cardiovascular outcomes, but based on many DPP-4 trials, we didn’t expect it to,” he said.
“I don’t think DPP-4s are going to fall into any different place in the [treatment] algorithm” based on these results, he added. The class is currently third-line after metformin or insulin, followed by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists for cardiovascular protection.
“When we look at [cardiovascular outcomes], ultimately, the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonists win,” he said. In addition, the blood glucose effects of linagliptin are “pretty modest, so if lowering hemoglobin A1c is the focus, this drug would be lower down on the list.”
Overall, linagliptin “falls into a lesser class, but a safe class for certain circumstances,” said Dr. Eckel, who gave the example of a woman in her late 70s with moderate to severe kidney function, an HbA1c level of 7.9%, and no cardiovascular disease. Her HbA1c might get down to 7.6% or so with linagliptin, he said, “but I’m not sure we have absolute proof of the benefit” of such a modest decline.
Boehringer Ingelheim, the maker of linagliptin, funded the study. The presenter disclosed honoraria, speaking fees, and grants from the company. A number of the investigators were employees of the company.
SAN FRANCISCO – The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin (Tradjenta) is safe on the kidneys, the cardiovascular system, and in older people with type 2 diabetes, according to findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Investigators in the international Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study with Linagliptin (CARMELINA) randomized 6,979 patients with type 2 diabetes who also had cardiovascular and/or kidney disease 1:1 to daily oral linagliptin 5 mg or placebo on top of standard of care, and they followed them for a median of 2.2 years. The mean age was 65.9 years, baseline hemoglobin A1c was 8.0%, and disease duration was about 15 years. Almost 63% of the patients were men, and about a quarter had a history of heart failure at baseline (JAMA. 2019;321[1]:69-79).
The study was unusual among other DPP-4 trials in that almost 60% of the patients were older than 65 years and 62.3% had impaired renal function with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2.
There was no increased risk with linagliptin, compared with placebo, in the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction (12.4% vs. 12.1%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.02; P = .74), and there was no difference between the individual components even when broken down by age (younger than 65, 65-75, or older than 75 years) or by renal function (eGFR 60 or more, 45 to less than 60, 30 to less than 45, or less than 30 ml/min per 1.73 m2), according to investigator Mark Cooper, MBBS, PhD, of the department of diabetes at Monash University, Melbourne, who presented the findings.
There was no increase in the number of hospitalizations for heart failure with linagliptin, compared with placebo (6% vs. 6.5%, respectively; HR, 0.90; P = .26) – a concern with some DPP-4 inhibitors – and no increase in hypoglycemia (just over a quarter in both groups), even when broken down by age and renal function.
A decrease in albuminuria with linagliptin held across all renal subgroups. It is not known if that was because of glucose lowering or some other effect, but Dr. Cooper said he believed there was “a modest renal protective effect, [although] not at the level one would expect to translate into hard renal outcomes.”
Robert Eckel, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who moderated the session, said the results were reassuring. “Ultimately, linagliptin seems safe,” even in older people with reduced eGFR. “It does not improve cardiovascular outcomes, but based on many DPP-4 trials, we didn’t expect it to,” he said.
“I don’t think DPP-4s are going to fall into any different place in the [treatment] algorithm” based on these results, he added. The class is currently third-line after metformin or insulin, followed by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists for cardiovascular protection.
“When we look at [cardiovascular outcomes], ultimately, the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 receptor agonists win,” he said. In addition, the blood glucose effects of linagliptin are “pretty modest, so if lowering hemoglobin A1c is the focus, this drug would be lower down on the list.”
Overall, linagliptin “falls into a lesser class, but a safe class for certain circumstances,” said Dr. Eckel, who gave the example of a woman in her late 70s with moderate to severe kidney function, an HbA1c level of 7.9%, and no cardiovascular disease. Her HbA1c might get down to 7.6% or so with linagliptin, he said, “but I’m not sure we have absolute proof of the benefit” of such a modest decline.
Boehringer Ingelheim, the maker of linagliptin, funded the study. The presenter disclosed honoraria, speaking fees, and grants from the company. A number of the investigators were employees of the company.
REPORTING FROM ADA 2019
The costs and benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors & GLP-1 RAs
The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.
“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.
Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”
“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”
According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.
Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.
“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.
Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”
“I have had very few of the ‘have nots’ who have been able to even consider these newer agents, which carry price tags of $600-$1,300 a month even with the availability of discounting coupons in the marketplace,” he added. “Most of these patients end up requiring a sulfonylurea or TZD [thiazolidinedione] as a second agent to achieve glycemic control. This makes it very difficult to achieve sufficient weight and metabolic control to avoid an eventual switch to insulin.”
Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an endocrine-trained general internist at DukeHealth in Durham, N.C., said she prescribes SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with metformin. “I prescribe them frequently, but they are not first-line treatments,” she explained.
“Nothing replaces diet and exercise” as therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes, she added.
Neil S. Skolnik, MD, said that insurance companies were not preventing patients from using these drugs in his experience. He also provided an optimistic take on the accessibility of these drugs in the near future.
“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
The side effects
While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.
GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.
“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”
Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.
These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.
“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The benefits
Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.
Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).
“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.
SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.
“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.
SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."
Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.
Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”
Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).
In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).
These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”
Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.
For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”
Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”
Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).
“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.
Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
The combination therapies
Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).
Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.
There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
What about adding insulin?
“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”
Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.
“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.
Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.
“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.
Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.
Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.
M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.
The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.
“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.
Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”
“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”
According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.
Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.
“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.
Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”
“I have had very few of the ‘have nots’ who have been able to even consider these newer agents, which carry price tags of $600-$1,300 a month even with the availability of discounting coupons in the marketplace,” he added. “Most of these patients end up requiring a sulfonylurea or TZD [thiazolidinedione] as a second agent to achieve glycemic control. This makes it very difficult to achieve sufficient weight and metabolic control to avoid an eventual switch to insulin.”
Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an endocrine-trained general internist at DukeHealth in Durham, N.C., said she prescribes SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with metformin. “I prescribe them frequently, but they are not first-line treatments,” she explained.
“Nothing replaces diet and exercise” as therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes, she added.
Neil S. Skolnik, MD, said that insurance companies were not preventing patients from using these drugs in his experience. He also provided an optimistic take on the accessibility of these drugs in the near future.
“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
The side effects
While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.
GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.
“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”
Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.
These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.
“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The benefits
Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.
Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).
“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.
SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.
“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.
SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."
Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.
Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”
Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).
In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).
These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”
Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.
For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”
Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”
Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).
“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.
Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
The combination therapies
Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).
Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.
There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
What about adding insulin?
“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”
Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.
“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.
Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.
“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.
Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.
Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.
M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.
The options for treating type 2 diabetes without insulin have grown beyond metformin to include a long list of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists that can be taken with or without metformin. These new drugs have cardiovascular and kidney benefits and help with weight loss, but they also carry risks and, according to some experts, their costs can be prohibitively expensive.
Given the medical community’s long-term experience with treating patients with metformin, and metformin’s lower cost, most of the physicians interviewed for this article advise using SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as second-line treatments. Others said that they would prefer to use the newer drugs as first-line therapies in select high-risk patients, but prior authorization hurdles created by insurance companies make that approach too burdensome.
“The economics of U.S. health care is stacked against many of our patients with diabetes in the current era,” Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, said in an interview.
Even when their insurance approves the drugs, patients still may not be able to afford the copay, explained Dr. Hopkins, professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock. “Sometimes patients can purchase drugs at a lower cost than the copay to purchase with the ‘drug coverage’ in their insurance plan – unfortunately, this is not the case with the newer diabetes medications we are discussing here.”
“SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists can cost several hundred dollars a month, and insurers often balk at paying for them. They’ll say, ‘Have you tried metformin?’ ” explained endocrinologist Victor Lawrence Roberts, MD, in a interview. “We have to work with insurance companies the best we can in a stepwise fashion.”
According to Dr. Roberts, 80% of his patients with diabetes struggle with the cost of medicine in general. “They’re either underinsured or not insured or their formulary is limited.
Douglas S. Paauw, MD, agreed in an interview that the newer drugs can be problematic on the insurance front.
“For some patients they aren’t affordable, especially for the uninsured if you can’t get them on an assistance program,” said Dr. Paauw, who is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the university.
Dr. Hopkins, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted that “unfortunately, the treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who cannot achieve control with metformin, diet, weight control, and exercise is a story of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ The ‘haves’ are those who have pharmacy benefits which make access to newer agents like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists a possibility.”
“I have had very few of the ‘have nots’ who have been able to even consider these newer agents, which carry price tags of $600-$1,300 a month even with the availability of discounting coupons in the marketplace,” he added. “Most of these patients end up requiring a sulfonylurea or TZD [thiazolidinedione] as a second agent to achieve glycemic control. This makes it very difficult to achieve sufficient weight and metabolic control to avoid an eventual switch to insulin.”
Fatima Z. Syed, MD, an endocrine-trained general internist at DukeHealth in Durham, N.C., said she prescribes SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with metformin. “I prescribe them frequently, but they are not first-line treatments,” she explained.
“Nothing replaces diet and exercise” as therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes, she added.
Neil S. Skolnik, MD, said that insurance companies were not preventing patients from using these drugs in his experience. He also provided an optimistic take on the accessibility of these drugs in the near future.
“Most insurance companies are now covering select SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists for appropriate patients and those companies that currently do not will soon have to,” said Dr. Skolnik, who is a professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health.
“The outcomes [associated with use of the new drugs] are robust, the benefits are large, and are well worth the cost,” he added.
The side effects
While others praised these drugs for their beneficial effects, they also noted that the side effects of these drugs are serious and must be discussed with patients.
GLP-1 receptor agonists are linked to gastrointestinal symptoms, especially nausea, while SGLT2 inhibitors have been linked to kidney failure, ketoacidosis, and more. The Food and Drug Administration warned in 2018 that the SGLT2 inhibitors can cause a rare serious infection known as Fournier’s gangrene – necrotizing fasciitis of the perineum.
“We have to tell our patients to let us know right away if they get pain or swelling in the genital area,” Dr. Paauw, who is on the Internal Medicine News board, noted. “The chance that an infection could explode quickly is higher in those who take these drugs.”
Amputation risks also are associated with taking the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana). The FDA requires the manufacturer of this drug to include a black-box warning about the risk of “lower-limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot,” but also the leg. In approval trials, the risk doubled versus placebo.
These amputation risks “put a damper on some of the enthusiasm on behalf of physicians and patients ... for taking this drug,” noted Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of internal medicine at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
While a manufacturer-funded study released last year found no link to amputations, the results weren’t powerful enough to rule out a moderately increased risk.
“[If] you are at high risk for having an amputation, we really have to take this risk very seriously,” said John B. Buse, MD, chief of the division of endocrinology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a presentation about the study at the 2018 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
The benefits
Despite these risks of adverse events, most interviewed agreed that the many benefits observed in those taking SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists make them worth prescribing, at least to those who are able to afford them.
Both SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have significant cardiovascular benefits. A 2019 meta-analysis and systematic review found that both drugs reduced major adverse cardiac events by about 12% (Circulation. 2019 Apr 23;139[17]:2022-31).
“They don’t cause hypoglycemia, they lower blood pressure, they don’t cause weight gain, and they might promote weight loss,” noted Dr. Paauw.
SGLT2 inhibitors also have shown signs of kidney benefits. The CREDENCE trial linked canagliflozin to a lowering of kidney disorders versus placebo (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380[24]:2295-306). “The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.81; P less than .001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .002),” the trial investigators wrote.
“They showed very nicely that the drug improved the kidney function of those patients and reduced the kidney deterioration,” said Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist in Tarzana, Calif., who chaired the 2011 and 2015 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ Comprehensive Diabetes Guidelines. The study was especially impressive, he added, because it included patients with low kidney function.
SGLT2 inhibitors’ “diuretic mechanism explains why there is a substantial reduction in heart failure hospitalizations in patients who take these drugs,” said cardiologist Marc E. Goldschmidt, MD, director of the Heart Success Program at Atlantic Health System’s Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center, in an interview. “Both the EMPA-REG Outcome and the CREDENCE trials demonstrated substantial benefit of this class of medications by showing a lower risk of cardiovascular death as well as death from any cause and a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure."
Overall, the SGLT2 trial data have been very consistent with a benefit for cardiovascular risk reduction, particularly in regard to heart failure hospitalizations and even in potentially preventing heart failure in diabetics,” he added.
Dr. Skolnik, a columnist for Family Practice News, cited SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists’ ability to slow renal disease progression, promote weight loss, and prevent poor cardiac outcomes.“These drugs should be used, in addition to metformin, in all patients with diabetes and vascular disease. These proven outcomes are far better than we ever were able to achieve previously and the strength of the evidence at this point is very strong,” said Dr. Skolnik. “In addition to the benefits of decreasing the development of cardiovascular disease, serious heart failure, and slowing progression of renal disease, these two classes of medication have additional benefits. Both classes help patients lose weight, which is very different from what was found with either sulfonylureas or insulin, which cause patients to gain weight. Also both the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 RAs [receptor agonists] have a low incidence of hypoglycemia. For all these reasons, these have become important medications for us to use in primary care.”
Other recent trials offer “very powerful data” about SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Roberts said. That’s good news, since “our approach needs to be toward cardiovascular protection and preservation as well as managing blood sugar.”An Israeli trial, whose results were released in May 2019 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, found that, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs, taking an SGLT2 inhibitor was associated with lower risks of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P less than .001). This trial also offered a new detail: The patients gained the benefit regardless of whether their baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved or reduced (J Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:suppl 1). The SGLT2 inhibitors used in this trial included dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and empagliflozin (Jardiance).
In another study released this year, a subanalysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, researchers reported that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced risks of both major adverse cardiovascular events and heart failure hospitalization in the subset of patients with type 2 diabetes and prior myocardial infarction versus controls (Circulation. 2019 May 28;139[22]:2516-27). The absolute risk reduction for major adverse cardiovascular events was 1.9% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = .046), while it was 0.6% for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .055).
These and other studies “speak volumes about the efficacy of managing blood sugar and addressing our biggest nemesis, which is cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Roberts said. “It’s irrefutable. The data [are] very good.”
Dr. Paauw said an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist is best reserved for use in select patients with cardiovascular risks and type 2 diabetes that need management beyond metformin.
For example, they might fit a 70-year-old with persistent hypertension who’s already taking a couple of blood pressure medications. “If they have another cardiovascular risk factor, the cardiovascular protection piece will be a bigger deal,” he said. Also, “it will probably help lower their blood pressure so they can avoid taking another blood pressure medicine.”
Trials of both GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefits “in improving [major adverse cardiac events], with the SGLT2 class showing substantial benefit in improving both heart failure and renal outcomes as well,” noted Dr. Skolnik. “It is in this context that one must address the question of whether the price of the medications are worthwhile. With such substantial benefit, there is no question in my mind that – for patients who have underlying cardiovascular illness, which includes patients with existent coronary disease, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral vascular disease – it is far and away worth it to prescribe these classes of medications.”
Indeed, the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes’ most recent guidelines now call for a GLP-1 receptor agonist – instead of insulin – to be the first injectable used to treat type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Care 2018 Dec; 41[12]:2669-701).
“For the relatively small number of my patients who have been able to access and use these medications for months or longer, more have tolerated the GLP-1 agonists than SGLT2 inhibitors primarily due to urinary issues,” noted Dr. Hopkins.
Dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors are another option in patients with type 2 diabetes, but research suggests they may not be a top option for patients with cardiovascular risk. A 2018 review noted that cardiovascular outcome trials for alogliptin (Nesina), saxagliptin (Onglyza), and sitagliptin (Januvia) showed noninferiority but failed to demonstrate any superiority, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk (Circ Res. 2018 May 11;122[10]:1439-59).
The combination therapies
Many of the newer drugs are available as combinations with other types of diabetes drugs. In some cases, physicians create their own form of combination therapy by separately prescribing two or more diabetes drugs. Earlier this year, a study suggested the benefits of this kind of add-on therapy: Diabetes outcomes improved in patients who took the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide and an SGLT2 inhibitor (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Mar 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30066-X).
Dr. Roberts suggested caution, however, when prescribing combination therapies. “My recommendation is always to begin with the individual medications to see if the patient tolerates the drugs and then decide which component needs to be titrated. It’s hard to titrate a combination drug, and it doesn’t leave a lot of flexibility. You never know which drug is doing what.
Dr. Handelsman said some patients may need to take three medications such as metformin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, and a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
“I don’t recommend using the combinations if you’re not familiar with the drugs ... These are relatively new pharmaceuticals, and most of us are on a learning curve as to how they fit into the armamentarium. If a drug is tolerated with a good response, you can certainly consider going to the combination tablets,” he added.
There is at least one drug that combines these three classes: The newly FDA-approved Qternmet XR, which combines dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor), saxagliptin (a GLP-1 receptor agonist), and metformin. As of mid-June 2019, it was not yet available in the United States. Its sister drug Qtern, which combines dapagliflozin and saxagliptin, costs more than $500 a month with a free coupon, according to goodrx.com. In contrast, metformin is extremely inexpensive, costing just a few dollars a month for a common starting dose.
What about adding insulin?
“Both [SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists] work very well with insulin,” Dr. Handelsman said. “There is a nice additive effect on the reduction of [hemoglobin] A1c. The only caution is that, although neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor GLP-1 receptor agonists cause hypoglycemia, in combination with insulin they do increase the risk of hypoglycemia. You may have to adjust the dose of insulin.”
Dr. Hopkins warned that cost becomes an even bigger issue when you add insulin into the mix.
“When insulin comes into the discussion, we are again stuck with astronomical costs which many struggle to afford,” he explained.
Indeed, the price tag on these drugs seems to be the biggest problem physicians have with them.
“The challenges in managing patients with diabetes aren’t the risks associated with the drugs. It’s dealing with their insurers,” noted Dr. Roberts.
Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Paauw, Dr. Roberts, and Dr. Syed reported no disclosures. Dr. Buse is an investigator for Johnson and Johnson. Dr. Goldschmidt is paid to speak by Novartis. Dr. Handelsman reported research grants, consulting work, and speaker honoraria from Amgen, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and others. Dr Skolnik reported nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, and GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. He also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Intarcia, Mylan, and GlaxoSmithKline.
Dr. Paauw and Dr. Skolnik are columnists for Family Practice News and Internal Medicine News.
M. Alexander Otto contributed to this report.
Once-weekly teriparatide still achieves bone mineral density gains
Once-weekly subcutaneous injections of the osteoporosis drug teriparatide still achieve increases in bone mineral density, according to a postmarketing observational study published online in Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia.
Teriparatide is widely used as a daily, self-injection formula for osteoporosis, but in Japan, a once-weekly injectable formulation of 56.5 ug is also being used in individuals with osteoporosis who are at high risk of fracture.
In a study of 3,573 Japanese patients with osteoporosis, investigators found increases of 2.8%, 4.9%, and 6.1% in lumbar spine bone mineral density measured at 24, 48, and 72 weeks respectively. In the femoral neck, bone mineral density increased by 1.6%, 1.4%, and 2.5% at 24, 48, and 72 weeks, and total hip bone mineral density increased by 1%, 1.6%, and 2.5%.
At 24 weeks, the median percent change from baseline in the level of serum bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide increased 23%, and then decreased to a 4.3% median change at 48 weeks and 8.7% at 72 weeks. There were no significant changes in serum bone-type alkaline phosphatase by 48 and 72 weeks, and no changes at all in the bone turnover markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphate-5b and cross-linked N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen.
Researchers also saw reductions in low back pain scores at all the time points, although the authors noted that the mechanism of this association was not well understood and needed further study.
“The results for efficacy parameters, including fracture incidences, in this surveillance were as expected based on the clinical studies prior to approval, indicating that the medical benefits of teriparatide were demonstrated in actual clinical practice after marketing,” wrote Dr. Emiko Ifuku and colleagues from Asahi Kasei Pharma, which manufactures the drug in Japan.
The study also looked at adherence to the once-weekly therapy, and found that 59.4% of patients were still taking the treatment at 24 weeks, and 39% were taking it at 72 weeks.
Around a quarter of patients experienced adverse reactions, with the most common being nausea (12.3%), vomiting (2.8%), headache (2.7%), and dizziness (2.2%) and most occurring within 24 weeks of starting treatment. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 26 patients (0.7%).
Asahi Kasei Pharma sponsored the study. All of the authors were employees of the company.
SOURCE: Ifuku E et al. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2019.06.002.
Once-weekly subcutaneous injections of the osteoporosis drug teriparatide still achieve increases in bone mineral density, according to a postmarketing observational study published online in Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia.
Teriparatide is widely used as a daily, self-injection formula for osteoporosis, but in Japan, a once-weekly injectable formulation of 56.5 ug is also being used in individuals with osteoporosis who are at high risk of fracture.
In a study of 3,573 Japanese patients with osteoporosis, investigators found increases of 2.8%, 4.9%, and 6.1% in lumbar spine bone mineral density measured at 24, 48, and 72 weeks respectively. In the femoral neck, bone mineral density increased by 1.6%, 1.4%, and 2.5% at 24, 48, and 72 weeks, and total hip bone mineral density increased by 1%, 1.6%, and 2.5%.
At 24 weeks, the median percent change from baseline in the level of serum bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide increased 23%, and then decreased to a 4.3% median change at 48 weeks and 8.7% at 72 weeks. There were no significant changes in serum bone-type alkaline phosphatase by 48 and 72 weeks, and no changes at all in the bone turnover markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphate-5b and cross-linked N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen.
Researchers also saw reductions in low back pain scores at all the time points, although the authors noted that the mechanism of this association was not well understood and needed further study.
“The results for efficacy parameters, including fracture incidences, in this surveillance were as expected based on the clinical studies prior to approval, indicating that the medical benefits of teriparatide were demonstrated in actual clinical practice after marketing,” wrote Dr. Emiko Ifuku and colleagues from Asahi Kasei Pharma, which manufactures the drug in Japan.
The study also looked at adherence to the once-weekly therapy, and found that 59.4% of patients were still taking the treatment at 24 weeks, and 39% were taking it at 72 weeks.
Around a quarter of patients experienced adverse reactions, with the most common being nausea (12.3%), vomiting (2.8%), headache (2.7%), and dizziness (2.2%) and most occurring within 24 weeks of starting treatment. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 26 patients (0.7%).
Asahi Kasei Pharma sponsored the study. All of the authors were employees of the company.
SOURCE: Ifuku E et al. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2019.06.002.
Once-weekly subcutaneous injections of the osteoporosis drug teriparatide still achieve increases in bone mineral density, according to a postmarketing observational study published online in Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia.
Teriparatide is widely used as a daily, self-injection formula for osteoporosis, but in Japan, a once-weekly injectable formulation of 56.5 ug is also being used in individuals with osteoporosis who are at high risk of fracture.
In a study of 3,573 Japanese patients with osteoporosis, investigators found increases of 2.8%, 4.9%, and 6.1% in lumbar spine bone mineral density measured at 24, 48, and 72 weeks respectively. In the femoral neck, bone mineral density increased by 1.6%, 1.4%, and 2.5% at 24, 48, and 72 weeks, and total hip bone mineral density increased by 1%, 1.6%, and 2.5%.
At 24 weeks, the median percent change from baseline in the level of serum bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide increased 23%, and then decreased to a 4.3% median change at 48 weeks and 8.7% at 72 weeks. There were no significant changes in serum bone-type alkaline phosphatase by 48 and 72 weeks, and no changes at all in the bone turnover markers tartrate-resistant acid phosphate-5b and cross-linked N-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen.
Researchers also saw reductions in low back pain scores at all the time points, although the authors noted that the mechanism of this association was not well understood and needed further study.
“The results for efficacy parameters, including fracture incidences, in this surveillance were as expected based on the clinical studies prior to approval, indicating that the medical benefits of teriparatide were demonstrated in actual clinical practice after marketing,” wrote Dr. Emiko Ifuku and colleagues from Asahi Kasei Pharma, which manufactures the drug in Japan.
The study also looked at adherence to the once-weekly therapy, and found that 59.4% of patients were still taking the treatment at 24 weeks, and 39% were taking it at 72 weeks.
Around a quarter of patients experienced adverse reactions, with the most common being nausea (12.3%), vomiting (2.8%), headache (2.7%), and dizziness (2.2%) and most occurring within 24 weeks of starting treatment. Serious adverse reactions were reported in 26 patients (0.7%).
Asahi Kasei Pharma sponsored the study. All of the authors were employees of the company.
SOURCE: Ifuku E et al. Osteoporos Sarcopenia. 2019 Jun 26. doi: 10.1016/j.afos.2019.06.002.
FROM OSTEOPOROSIS AND SARCOPENIA
Women express low decision regret after preimplantation testing for aneuploidy
undergoing fertility treatment, research suggests.
In a report published in Human Reproduction, researchers did an anonymous survey of 69 patients undergoing their first cycle of autologous preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) at a single fertility center.
“Despite the known distress associated with many aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and the many opportunities for distress among patients pursuing PGT-A, little is known about the associated patient experience and psychological risks,” wrote Dr. Kara N. Goldman of New York University Langone Fertility Center, and coauthors.
“A ‘failure’ after PGT-A can present in many forms well before other IVF losses may be experienced: Embryos may not meet criteria for biopsy, PGT-A may result in an all-aneuploid embryo cohort, or a euploid embryo may fail to implant,” the authors continued.
The mean overall decision regret scale score was 8.5 on a scale of 0-100 – with a median of 0 – and 61% of respondents said they had no regrets about undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy; the remaining 39% reported “any degree of regret.”
This “one-third of respondents reported some degree of regret, suggesting an important opportunity for pretest counseling and support among patients pursuing PGT-A,” Dr. Goldman and associates emphasized.
Of the respondents who then underwent euploid embryo transfer, and who had a known pregnancy outcome, the 36 with an ongoing or delivered pregnancy had significantly less decision regret than the 24 who experienced a negative pregnancy test or a miscarriage.
The study found no differences in decision regret between those aged under or over 35 years of age, those with different levels of educational attainment, or between patients who paid exclusively out of pocket compared with those with any insurance coverage.
However, greater levels of decision regret were seen in patients who had experienced a longer time since retrieval of oocytes and those who said they would consider pregnancy with donor oocytes if they were unsuccessful with IVF and PGT-A.
“Completing a cycle of IVF with PGT-A and obtaining no usable, euploid embryos results in distress, but this distress must be weighed against the alternative scenario in which a patient invests valuable time, energy, and resources into a futile embryo transfer cycle resulting in a negative pregnancy test, miscarriage, or aneuploid gestation,” the authors wrote.
When assessing the dependence of the decision regret score on demographic factors, the researchers found that patients who had learned about PGT-A from their physicians, rather than from other sources such as friends or the Internet, had the highest levels of decision regret.
There was no external funding. One coauthor declared personal fees and other support from the fertility and pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Goldman KN et al. Hum Reprod. 2019 Jun 21. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez080.
undergoing fertility treatment, research suggests.
In a report published in Human Reproduction, researchers did an anonymous survey of 69 patients undergoing their first cycle of autologous preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) at a single fertility center.
“Despite the known distress associated with many aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and the many opportunities for distress among patients pursuing PGT-A, little is known about the associated patient experience and psychological risks,” wrote Dr. Kara N. Goldman of New York University Langone Fertility Center, and coauthors.
“A ‘failure’ after PGT-A can present in many forms well before other IVF losses may be experienced: Embryos may not meet criteria for biopsy, PGT-A may result in an all-aneuploid embryo cohort, or a euploid embryo may fail to implant,” the authors continued.
The mean overall decision regret scale score was 8.5 on a scale of 0-100 – with a median of 0 – and 61% of respondents said they had no regrets about undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy; the remaining 39% reported “any degree of regret.”
This “one-third of respondents reported some degree of regret, suggesting an important opportunity for pretest counseling and support among patients pursuing PGT-A,” Dr. Goldman and associates emphasized.
Of the respondents who then underwent euploid embryo transfer, and who had a known pregnancy outcome, the 36 with an ongoing or delivered pregnancy had significantly less decision regret than the 24 who experienced a negative pregnancy test or a miscarriage.
The study found no differences in decision regret between those aged under or over 35 years of age, those with different levels of educational attainment, or between patients who paid exclusively out of pocket compared with those with any insurance coverage.
However, greater levels of decision regret were seen in patients who had experienced a longer time since retrieval of oocytes and those who said they would consider pregnancy with donor oocytes if they were unsuccessful with IVF and PGT-A.
“Completing a cycle of IVF with PGT-A and obtaining no usable, euploid embryos results in distress, but this distress must be weighed against the alternative scenario in which a patient invests valuable time, energy, and resources into a futile embryo transfer cycle resulting in a negative pregnancy test, miscarriage, or aneuploid gestation,” the authors wrote.
When assessing the dependence of the decision regret score on demographic factors, the researchers found that patients who had learned about PGT-A from their physicians, rather than from other sources such as friends or the Internet, had the highest levels of decision regret.
There was no external funding. One coauthor declared personal fees and other support from the fertility and pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Goldman KN et al. Hum Reprod. 2019 Jun 21. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez080.
undergoing fertility treatment, research suggests.
In a report published in Human Reproduction, researchers did an anonymous survey of 69 patients undergoing their first cycle of autologous preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) at a single fertility center.
“Despite the known distress associated with many aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and the many opportunities for distress among patients pursuing PGT-A, little is known about the associated patient experience and psychological risks,” wrote Dr. Kara N. Goldman of New York University Langone Fertility Center, and coauthors.
“A ‘failure’ after PGT-A can present in many forms well before other IVF losses may be experienced: Embryos may not meet criteria for biopsy, PGT-A may result in an all-aneuploid embryo cohort, or a euploid embryo may fail to implant,” the authors continued.
The mean overall decision regret scale score was 8.5 on a scale of 0-100 – with a median of 0 – and 61% of respondents said they had no regrets about undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy; the remaining 39% reported “any degree of regret.”
This “one-third of respondents reported some degree of regret, suggesting an important opportunity for pretest counseling and support among patients pursuing PGT-A,” Dr. Goldman and associates emphasized.
Of the respondents who then underwent euploid embryo transfer, and who had a known pregnancy outcome, the 36 with an ongoing or delivered pregnancy had significantly less decision regret than the 24 who experienced a negative pregnancy test or a miscarriage.
The study found no differences in decision regret between those aged under or over 35 years of age, those with different levels of educational attainment, or between patients who paid exclusively out of pocket compared with those with any insurance coverage.
However, greater levels of decision regret were seen in patients who had experienced a longer time since retrieval of oocytes and those who said they would consider pregnancy with donor oocytes if they were unsuccessful with IVF and PGT-A.
“Completing a cycle of IVF with PGT-A and obtaining no usable, euploid embryos results in distress, but this distress must be weighed against the alternative scenario in which a patient invests valuable time, energy, and resources into a futile embryo transfer cycle resulting in a negative pregnancy test, miscarriage, or aneuploid gestation,” the authors wrote.
When assessing the dependence of the decision regret score on demographic factors, the researchers found that patients who had learned about PGT-A from their physicians, rather than from other sources such as friends or the Internet, had the highest levels of decision regret.
There was no external funding. One coauthor declared personal fees and other support from the fertility and pharmaceutical sector. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Goldman KN et al. Hum Reprod. 2019 Jun 21. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez080.
FROM HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Consider cutaneous endometriosis in women with umbilical lesions
according to Liza Raffi of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and associates.
The report, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology, detailed a case of a woman aged 41 years who presented with a 5-month history of a painful firm subcutaneous nodule in the umbilicus and flares of pain during menstrual periods. Her past history indicated a missed miscarriage (removed by dilation and curettage) and laparoscopic left salpingectomy for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy.
At presentation, the woman reported undergoing fertility treatments including subcutaneous injections of follitropin beta and choriogonadotropin alfa.
Because of the patient’s history of salpingectomy and painful menstrual periods, her physicians suspected cutaneous endometriosis. An ultrasound was performed to rule out fistula, and then a punch biopsy of the nodule was performed. The biopsy showed endometrial glands with encompassing fibrotic stroma, which was consistent with cutaneous endometriosis, likely transplanted during the laparoscopic port site entry during salpingectomy.
The patient chose to undergo surgery for excision of the nodule, declining hormonal therapy because she was undergoing fertility treatment.
“The differential diagnosis of umbilical lesions with similar presentation includes keloid, dermatofibroma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, and cutaneous metastasis of cancer,” the investigators wrote. “Ultimately, patients should be referred to obstetrics & gynecology if they describe classic symptoms including pain with menses, dyspareunia, and infertility and wish to explore diagnostic and therapeutic options.”
Ms. Raffi and associates reported they had no conflicts of interest. There was no external funding.
SOURCE: Raffi L et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2019 Jul 2. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.06.025.
according to Liza Raffi of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and associates.
The report, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology, detailed a case of a woman aged 41 years who presented with a 5-month history of a painful firm subcutaneous nodule in the umbilicus and flares of pain during menstrual periods. Her past history indicated a missed miscarriage (removed by dilation and curettage) and laparoscopic left salpingectomy for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy.
At presentation, the woman reported undergoing fertility treatments including subcutaneous injections of follitropin beta and choriogonadotropin alfa.
Because of the patient’s history of salpingectomy and painful menstrual periods, her physicians suspected cutaneous endometriosis. An ultrasound was performed to rule out fistula, and then a punch biopsy of the nodule was performed. The biopsy showed endometrial glands with encompassing fibrotic stroma, which was consistent with cutaneous endometriosis, likely transplanted during the laparoscopic port site entry during salpingectomy.
The patient chose to undergo surgery for excision of the nodule, declining hormonal therapy because she was undergoing fertility treatment.
“The differential diagnosis of umbilical lesions with similar presentation includes keloid, dermatofibroma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, and cutaneous metastasis of cancer,” the investigators wrote. “Ultimately, patients should be referred to obstetrics & gynecology if they describe classic symptoms including pain with menses, dyspareunia, and infertility and wish to explore diagnostic and therapeutic options.”
Ms. Raffi and associates reported they had no conflicts of interest. There was no external funding.
SOURCE: Raffi L et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2019 Jul 2. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.06.025.
according to Liza Raffi of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and associates.
The report, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology, detailed a case of a woman aged 41 years who presented with a 5-month history of a painful firm subcutaneous nodule in the umbilicus and flares of pain during menstrual periods. Her past history indicated a missed miscarriage (removed by dilation and curettage) and laparoscopic left salpingectomy for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy.
At presentation, the woman reported undergoing fertility treatments including subcutaneous injections of follitropin beta and choriogonadotropin alfa.
Because of the patient’s history of salpingectomy and painful menstrual periods, her physicians suspected cutaneous endometriosis. An ultrasound was performed to rule out fistula, and then a punch biopsy of the nodule was performed. The biopsy showed endometrial glands with encompassing fibrotic stroma, which was consistent with cutaneous endometriosis, likely transplanted during the laparoscopic port site entry during salpingectomy.
The patient chose to undergo surgery for excision of the nodule, declining hormonal therapy because she was undergoing fertility treatment.
“The differential diagnosis of umbilical lesions with similar presentation includes keloid, dermatofibroma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans, and cutaneous metastasis of cancer,” the investigators wrote. “Ultimately, patients should be referred to obstetrics & gynecology if they describe classic symptoms including pain with menses, dyspareunia, and infertility and wish to explore diagnostic and therapeutic options.”
Ms. Raffi and associates reported they had no conflicts of interest. There was no external funding.
SOURCE: Raffi L et al. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2019 Jul 2. doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.06.025.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WOMEN’S DERMATOLOGY
Bariatric Surgery + Medical Therapy: Effective Tx for T2DM?
A 46-year-old woman presents with a BMI of 28, a 4-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and an A1C of 9.8%. The patient is currently being treated with intensive medical therapy (IMT), including metformin 2000 mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d, and insulin glargine 12 U/d, with minimal change in A1C. Should you recommend bariatric surgery?
One in 11 Americans has diabetes, and at least 95% of those have T2DM.2,3 The treatment of T2DM is generally multimodal to target the various mechanisms that cause hyperglycemia. Strategies may include making lifestyle modifications, decreasing insulin resistance, increasing insulin secretion, replacing insulin, and targeting incretin-hormonal pathways.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications as firstline therapy for diabetes management, but these methods are often inadequate.2 In addition to various pharmacotherapeutic strategies for some populations with T2DM, the ADA recommends bariatric surgery for those with a BMI ≥ 35 and uncontrolled hyperglycemia.2,4
However, this recommendation is based only on short-term studies. For example, in a single-center, nonblinded RCT of 60 patients with a BMI ≥ 35, the average baseline A1C levels of 8.65 ± 1.45% were reduced to 7.7 ± 0.6% in the IMT group and to 6.4 ± 1.4% in the gastric-bypass group at 2 years.5 In another study, a randomized double-blind trial involving 60 moderately obese patients (BMI, 25-35), gastric bypass yielded better outcomes than sleeve gastrectomy: 93% of patients in the former group and 47% of those in the latter group achieved remission of T2DM over a 12-month period.6
The current study by Schauer et al examined the long-term outcomes of IMT alone vs bariatric surgery with IMT for the treatment of T2DM in patients who are overweight or obese.1
STUDY SUMMARY
5-year follow-up: surgery + IMT works
This study was a 5-year follow-up of a nonblinded, single-center RCT comparing IMT alone to IMT with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in 150 patients with T2DM.1 Patients were included if they were ages 20 to 60, had a BMI of 27 to 43, and had an A1C > 7%. Patients with a history of bariatric surgery, complex abdominal surgery, or uncontrolled medical or psychiatric disorders were excluded.
Patients were randomly placed in a 1:1:1 fashion into 3 groups: IMT (as defined by the ADA) only, IMT and gastric bypass, or IMT and sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an A1C ≤ 6%. Secondary outcomes included weight loss, glucose control, lipid levels, blood pressure, medication use, renal function, adverse effects, ophthalmologic outcomes, and quality of life.
Continue to: Of the 150 patients...
Of the 150 patients, 1 died during the follow-up period, leaving 149. Of these, 134 completed the 5-year follow-up. Eight patients in the IMT group and 1 patient in the sleeve gastrectomy group never initiated assigned treatment, and 6 patients were lost to follow-up. One patient from the IMT group and 1 patient from the sleeve gastrectomy group crossed over to the gastric bypass group.
Results. More patients in the bariatric surgery and sleeve gastrectomy groups achieved an A1C of ≤ 6% than in the IMT group (14 of 49 gastric bypass patients, 11 of 47 sleeve gastrectomy patients, and 2 of 38 IMT patients). Compared with those in the IMT group, the patients in the 2 surgery groups showed greater reductions from baseline in body weight and triglyceride levels and greater increases from baseline in HDL cholesterol levels; they also required less antidiabetes medication for glycemic control (see Table).1
WHAT’S NEW?
Big benefits, minimal adverse effects
Prior studies evaluating the effect of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes were observational or had a shorter follow-up duration. This study demonstrates that bariatric surgery plus IMT has long-term benefits with minimal adverse events, compared with IMT alone.1,5 Additionally, this study supports recommendations for bariatric surgery as treatment for T2DM in patients with a BMI ≥ 27, which is below the starting BMI (35) recommended by the ADA.1,4
CAVEATS
Surgery is not without risks
The risk for surgical complications—eg, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe hypoglycemia requiring intervention, and ketoacidosis—in this patient population is significant.1 Other potential complications include gastrointestinal leak, stroke, and infection.1 Additionally, long-term complications from bariatric surgery are emerging and include choledocholithiasis, intestinal obstruction, and esophageal pathology.7 Extensive patient counseling is necessary to ensure that patients make an informed decision regarding surgery.
This study utilized surrogate markers (A1C, lipid levels, and body weight) as disease-oriented outcome measures. Patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, were not explored in this study.
Continue to: Due to the small sample size...
Due to the small sample size of the study, it is unclear if the outcomes of the 2 surgery groups were significantly different. Patients who underwent gastric bypass surgery had more weight loss and used less diabetes medication at the end of follow-up, compared with patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. More information is needed to determine which gastric surgery is preferable for the treatment of T2DM while minimizing adverse effects. However, both of the procedures had outcomes superior to those of IMT, and selection of a particular type of surgery should be a joint decision between the patient and provider.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Access and cost may be barriers
The major barriers to implementation are access to, and cost of, bariatric surgery.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[2]:102-104).
1. Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, et al; STAMPEDE Investigators. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes—5-year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-651.
2. American Diabetes Association. Obesity management for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(suppl 1):S81-S89.
3. CDC. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Atlanta, GA: CDC, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2019.
4. Rubino F, Nathan DM, Eckel RH, et al. Metabolic surgery in the treatment algorithm for type 2 diabetes: a joint statement by international diabetes organizations. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:861-877.
5. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1577-1585.
6. Lee WJ, Chong K, Ser KH, et al. Gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2011; 146:143-148.
7. Schulman AR, Thompson CC. Complications of bariatric surgery: what you can expect to see in your GI practice. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:1640-1655.
A 46-year-old woman presents with a BMI of 28, a 4-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and an A1C of 9.8%. The patient is currently being treated with intensive medical therapy (IMT), including metformin 2000 mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d, and insulin glargine 12 U/d, with minimal change in A1C. Should you recommend bariatric surgery?
One in 11 Americans has diabetes, and at least 95% of those have T2DM.2,3 The treatment of T2DM is generally multimodal to target the various mechanisms that cause hyperglycemia. Strategies may include making lifestyle modifications, decreasing insulin resistance, increasing insulin secretion, replacing insulin, and targeting incretin-hormonal pathways.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications as firstline therapy for diabetes management, but these methods are often inadequate.2 In addition to various pharmacotherapeutic strategies for some populations with T2DM, the ADA recommends bariatric surgery for those with a BMI ≥ 35 and uncontrolled hyperglycemia.2,4
However, this recommendation is based only on short-term studies. For example, in a single-center, nonblinded RCT of 60 patients with a BMI ≥ 35, the average baseline A1C levels of 8.65 ± 1.45% were reduced to 7.7 ± 0.6% in the IMT group and to 6.4 ± 1.4% in the gastric-bypass group at 2 years.5 In another study, a randomized double-blind trial involving 60 moderately obese patients (BMI, 25-35), gastric bypass yielded better outcomes than sleeve gastrectomy: 93% of patients in the former group and 47% of those in the latter group achieved remission of T2DM over a 12-month period.6
The current study by Schauer et al examined the long-term outcomes of IMT alone vs bariatric surgery with IMT for the treatment of T2DM in patients who are overweight or obese.1
STUDY SUMMARY
5-year follow-up: surgery + IMT works
This study was a 5-year follow-up of a nonblinded, single-center RCT comparing IMT alone to IMT with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in 150 patients with T2DM.1 Patients were included if they were ages 20 to 60, had a BMI of 27 to 43, and had an A1C > 7%. Patients with a history of bariatric surgery, complex abdominal surgery, or uncontrolled medical or psychiatric disorders were excluded.
Patients were randomly placed in a 1:1:1 fashion into 3 groups: IMT (as defined by the ADA) only, IMT and gastric bypass, or IMT and sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an A1C ≤ 6%. Secondary outcomes included weight loss, glucose control, lipid levels, blood pressure, medication use, renal function, adverse effects, ophthalmologic outcomes, and quality of life.
Continue to: Of the 150 patients...
Of the 150 patients, 1 died during the follow-up period, leaving 149. Of these, 134 completed the 5-year follow-up. Eight patients in the IMT group and 1 patient in the sleeve gastrectomy group never initiated assigned treatment, and 6 patients were lost to follow-up. One patient from the IMT group and 1 patient from the sleeve gastrectomy group crossed over to the gastric bypass group.
Results. More patients in the bariatric surgery and sleeve gastrectomy groups achieved an A1C of ≤ 6% than in the IMT group (14 of 49 gastric bypass patients, 11 of 47 sleeve gastrectomy patients, and 2 of 38 IMT patients). Compared with those in the IMT group, the patients in the 2 surgery groups showed greater reductions from baseline in body weight and triglyceride levels and greater increases from baseline in HDL cholesterol levels; they also required less antidiabetes medication for glycemic control (see Table).1
WHAT’S NEW?
Big benefits, minimal adverse effects
Prior studies evaluating the effect of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes were observational or had a shorter follow-up duration. This study demonstrates that bariatric surgery plus IMT has long-term benefits with minimal adverse events, compared with IMT alone.1,5 Additionally, this study supports recommendations for bariatric surgery as treatment for T2DM in patients with a BMI ≥ 27, which is below the starting BMI (35) recommended by the ADA.1,4
CAVEATS
Surgery is not without risks
The risk for surgical complications—eg, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe hypoglycemia requiring intervention, and ketoacidosis—in this patient population is significant.1 Other potential complications include gastrointestinal leak, stroke, and infection.1 Additionally, long-term complications from bariatric surgery are emerging and include choledocholithiasis, intestinal obstruction, and esophageal pathology.7 Extensive patient counseling is necessary to ensure that patients make an informed decision regarding surgery.
This study utilized surrogate markers (A1C, lipid levels, and body weight) as disease-oriented outcome measures. Patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, were not explored in this study.
Continue to: Due to the small sample size...
Due to the small sample size of the study, it is unclear if the outcomes of the 2 surgery groups were significantly different. Patients who underwent gastric bypass surgery had more weight loss and used less diabetes medication at the end of follow-up, compared with patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. More information is needed to determine which gastric surgery is preferable for the treatment of T2DM while minimizing adverse effects. However, both of the procedures had outcomes superior to those of IMT, and selection of a particular type of surgery should be a joint decision between the patient and provider.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Access and cost may be barriers
The major barriers to implementation are access to, and cost of, bariatric surgery.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[2]:102-104).
A 46-year-old woman presents with a BMI of 28, a 4-year history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and an A1C of 9.8%. The patient is currently being treated with intensive medical therapy (IMT), including metformin 2000 mg/d, sitagliptin 100 mg/d, and insulin glargine 12 U/d, with minimal change in A1C. Should you recommend bariatric surgery?
One in 11 Americans has diabetes, and at least 95% of those have T2DM.2,3 The treatment of T2DM is generally multimodal to target the various mechanisms that cause hyperglycemia. Strategies may include making lifestyle modifications, decreasing insulin resistance, increasing insulin secretion, replacing insulin, and targeting incretin-hormonal pathways.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends diet, exercise, and behavioral modifications as firstline therapy for diabetes management, but these methods are often inadequate.2 In addition to various pharmacotherapeutic strategies for some populations with T2DM, the ADA recommends bariatric surgery for those with a BMI ≥ 35 and uncontrolled hyperglycemia.2,4
However, this recommendation is based only on short-term studies. For example, in a single-center, nonblinded RCT of 60 patients with a BMI ≥ 35, the average baseline A1C levels of 8.65 ± 1.45% were reduced to 7.7 ± 0.6% in the IMT group and to 6.4 ± 1.4% in the gastric-bypass group at 2 years.5 In another study, a randomized double-blind trial involving 60 moderately obese patients (BMI, 25-35), gastric bypass yielded better outcomes than sleeve gastrectomy: 93% of patients in the former group and 47% of those in the latter group achieved remission of T2DM over a 12-month period.6
The current study by Schauer et al examined the long-term outcomes of IMT alone vs bariatric surgery with IMT for the treatment of T2DM in patients who are overweight or obese.1
STUDY SUMMARY
5-year follow-up: surgery + IMT works
This study was a 5-year follow-up of a nonblinded, single-center RCT comparing IMT alone to IMT with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy in 150 patients with T2DM.1 Patients were included if they were ages 20 to 60, had a BMI of 27 to 43, and had an A1C > 7%. Patients with a history of bariatric surgery, complex abdominal surgery, or uncontrolled medical or psychiatric disorders were excluded.
Patients were randomly placed in a 1:1:1 fashion into 3 groups: IMT (as defined by the ADA) only, IMT and gastric bypass, or IMT and sleeve gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an A1C ≤ 6%. Secondary outcomes included weight loss, glucose control, lipid levels, blood pressure, medication use, renal function, adverse effects, ophthalmologic outcomes, and quality of life.
Continue to: Of the 150 patients...
Of the 150 patients, 1 died during the follow-up period, leaving 149. Of these, 134 completed the 5-year follow-up. Eight patients in the IMT group and 1 patient in the sleeve gastrectomy group never initiated assigned treatment, and 6 patients were lost to follow-up. One patient from the IMT group and 1 patient from the sleeve gastrectomy group crossed over to the gastric bypass group.
Results. More patients in the bariatric surgery and sleeve gastrectomy groups achieved an A1C of ≤ 6% than in the IMT group (14 of 49 gastric bypass patients, 11 of 47 sleeve gastrectomy patients, and 2 of 38 IMT patients). Compared with those in the IMT group, the patients in the 2 surgery groups showed greater reductions from baseline in body weight and triglyceride levels and greater increases from baseline in HDL cholesterol levels; they also required less antidiabetes medication for glycemic control (see Table).1
WHAT’S NEW?
Big benefits, minimal adverse effects
Prior studies evaluating the effect of gastric bypass surgery on diabetes were observational or had a shorter follow-up duration. This study demonstrates that bariatric surgery plus IMT has long-term benefits with minimal adverse events, compared with IMT alone.1,5 Additionally, this study supports recommendations for bariatric surgery as treatment for T2DM in patients with a BMI ≥ 27, which is below the starting BMI (35) recommended by the ADA.1,4
CAVEATS
Surgery is not without risks
The risk for surgical complications—eg, gastrointestinal bleeding, severe hypoglycemia requiring intervention, and ketoacidosis—in this patient population is significant.1 Other potential complications include gastrointestinal leak, stroke, and infection.1 Additionally, long-term complications from bariatric surgery are emerging and include choledocholithiasis, intestinal obstruction, and esophageal pathology.7 Extensive patient counseling is necessary to ensure that patients make an informed decision regarding surgery.
This study utilized surrogate markers (A1C, lipid levels, and body weight) as disease-oriented outcome measures. Patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity and mortality, were not explored in this study.
Continue to: Due to the small sample size...
Due to the small sample size of the study, it is unclear if the outcomes of the 2 surgery groups were significantly different. Patients who underwent gastric bypass surgery had more weight loss and used less diabetes medication at the end of follow-up, compared with patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. More information is needed to determine which gastric surgery is preferable for the treatment of T2DM while minimizing adverse effects. However, both of the procedures had outcomes superior to those of IMT, and selection of a particular type of surgery should be a joint decision between the patient and provider.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Access and cost may be barriers
The major barriers to implementation are access to, and cost of, bariatric surgery.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[2]:102-104).
1. Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, et al; STAMPEDE Investigators. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes—5-year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-651.
2. American Diabetes Association. Obesity management for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(suppl 1):S81-S89.
3. CDC. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Atlanta, GA: CDC, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2019.
4. Rubino F, Nathan DM, Eckel RH, et al. Metabolic surgery in the treatment algorithm for type 2 diabetes: a joint statement by international diabetes organizations. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:861-877.
5. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1577-1585.
6. Lee WJ, Chong K, Ser KH, et al. Gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2011; 146:143-148.
7. Schulman AR, Thompson CC. Complications of bariatric surgery: what you can expect to see in your GI practice. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:1640-1655.
1. Schauer PR, Bhatt DL, Kirwan JP, et al; STAMPEDE Investigators. Bariatric surgery versus intensive medical therapy for diabetes—5-year outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:641-651.
2. American Diabetes Association. Obesity management for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(suppl 1):S81-S89.
3. CDC. National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2017. Atlanta, GA: CDC, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2019.
4. Rubino F, Nathan DM, Eckel RH, et al. Metabolic surgery in the treatment algorithm for type 2 diabetes: a joint statement by international diabetes organizations. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:861-877.
5. Mingrone G, Panunzi S, De Gaetano A, et al. Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1577-1585.
6. Lee WJ, Chong K, Ser KH, et al. Gastric bypass vs sleeve gastrectomy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Surg. 2011; 146:143-148.
7. Schulman AR, Thompson CC. Complications of bariatric surgery: what you can expect to see in your GI practice. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:1640-1655.
