Lipid Disorders

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

Support for a cardiovascular benefit of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), has come from a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials found that omega-3 fatty acids improved cardiovascular outcomes, with a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk in studies of EPA alone rather than of combined eicosapentaenoic plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplements.

The paper was published online in EClinicalMedicine.

Senior author Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was also lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, which is included in the analysis and showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events with a high-dose EPA product.

But the REDUCE-IT trial has been mired in controversy, with suggestions that the benefit seen might have been exaggerated because of the use of a harmful placebo. In addition, a second large trial of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids, STRENGTH (which tested a combination EPA/DHA product) showed no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes.

Dr. Bhatt said the new meta-analysis provides “a totality of evidence” that “supports a robust and consistent benefit of EPA.”

In the review, the authors concluded: “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we noted moderate certainty of evidence favoring omega-3 fatty acids for reducing cardiovascular mortality and outcomes. ... The magnitude of relative reductions was robust in EPA trials versus those of EPA+DHA, suggesting differential effects of EPA and DHA in cardiovascular risk reduction.”
 

Controversy continues

But commenting on the publication for an interview, Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, who led the STRENGTH trial, pointed out that 85% of the EPA data in the new meta-analysis came from REDUCE-IT, so the results were a “foregone conclusion.”

“The purpose of a meta-analysis is to answer scientific questions when existing studies are too small to yield statistically robust results. That is not the case here,” Dr. Nissen stated.

He added: “There are only two major trials of EPA and both have important flaws. REDUCE-IT used a questionable placebo (mineral oil) and JELIS was an open-label trial that studied patients with baseline LDL [cholesterol] of 180 mg/dL that was not appropriately treated. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that it includes. The other EPA plus DHA studies were essentially neutral.”

Dr. Bhatt responded that, “to date, every randomized trial of EPA only has been positive. Some have been placebo controlled, some have been open label. This meta-analysis corroborates the results of each of those trials in a statistically robust way.”

He added: “Of course, REDUCE-IT is the most rigorous, contemporary trial of EPA. However, in our meta-analysis, even when excluding REDUCE-IT (or for that matter, JELIS), the EPA trials still significantly reduced cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Bhatt also pointed out that two randomized imaging studies, CHERRY and EVAPORATE, have shown benefits of EPA.

“Beyond the clinical trial data, there is a growing amount of evidence supporting the unique biological actions of different omega-3 fatty acids. EPA, in particular, appears to have the strongest basic science evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits. Overall, it is a remarkably consistent scientific story in support of EPA’s beneficial effects on cardiovascular health,” he stated.
 

38 trials included

For the current paper, Dr. Bhatt and coauthors performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control (placebo, no supplementation, or lower dose of omega-3 fatty acids) in adults, with a follow-up of at least 12 months, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as endpoints.

Ultimately, 38 trials encompassing 149,051 patients were included. Of these, four trials compared EPA with control, 34 trials compared EPA+DHA with control, and 22 trials were in primary prevention. The dose of omega-3 fatty acids ranged from 0.4 g/day to 5.5 g/day.

A total of 25 trials with 143,514 individuals reported 5,550 events of cardiovascular mortality, and 24 trials with 140,983 individuals reported 10,795 events of all-cause mortality.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality (rate ratio, 0.93; P = .01), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; P = .27). The meta-analysis showed reduction in cardiovascular mortality with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.82; P = .04) and EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .02).

A total of 20 trials with 125,611 individuals reported 2,989 nonfatal myocardial infarction events, and 29 trials with 144,384 individuals reported 9,153 coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing nonfatal MI (RR, 0.87; P = .0001) and CHD (RR, 0.91; P = .0002). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in nonfatal MI with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.72; P = .00002) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.92; P = .05), and also for CHD events with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.73; P = .00004) than with EPA+DHA combination (RR, 0.94; P = .01).

A total of 17 trials (n = 135,019) reported 13,234 events of MACE, and 13 trials (n = 117,890) reported 7,416 events of revascularization.

Omega-3 fatty acids were associated with reducing MACE (RR, 0.95; P = .002) and revascularization (RR, 0.91; P = .0001). The meta-analysis showed higher risk reductions in MACE with EPA monotherapy (RR, 0.78; P = .00000001), whereas EPA+DHA combination did not reduce MACE (RR, 0.99; P = .48). This effect was consistent for revascularization.

A total of eight trials with 65,404 individuals reported 935 nonfatal strokes, and eight trials with 51,336 individuals reported 1,572 events of atrial fibrillation (AFib).

Omega-3 fatty acids did not significantly reduce nonfatal stroke (RR, 1.04; P = .55), but EPA monotherapy was associated with a reduction of nonfatal stroke, compared with control (RR: 0.71; P = .01).

Conversely, omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increased risk for AFib (RR, 1.26; P = .004), with a higher risk with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.35; P = .004).

Overall, omega-3 fatty acids did not prevent sudden cardiac death or increase gastrointestinal-related adverse events, total bleeding, or major or minor bleeding; however, the meta-analysis showed a higher risk of total bleeding with EPA monotherapy than with control (RR, 1.49; P = .006).

An influence analysis with stepwise exclusion of one trial at a time, including REDUCE-IT, did not alter the overall summary estimates. “Despite the exclusion of REDUCE-IT, EPA monotherapy reduced MACE by 23%, compared with the control,” the authors reported.

They said these new findings also have important implications for clinical practice and treatment guidelines.

“After REDUCE-IT, several national and international guidelines endorsed EPA in their therapeutic recommendations. However, the publication of two recent negative trials of EPA + DHA has created some confusion in the scientific community about the value of omega-3 FAs in preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD],” they stated.

“This meta-analysis provides reassurance about the role of omega-3 fatty acids, specifically EPA, in the current treatment framework of ASCVD residual cardiovascular risk reduction and encourages investigators to explore further the cardiovascular effects of EPA across different clinical settings,” they added.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin. Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives research funding from Amarin for the work Dr. Bhatt did as the trial chair and as the international principal investigator. The present analysis was unfunded.

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

The reported prevalence and severity of obstructive sleep apnea in women is lower, compared with men, but the consequences of the disease are “at least the same, if not worse,” with women appearing to have greater susceptibility to adverse OSA-related cardiovascular consequences – particularly as it pertains to endothelial dysfunction, Reena Mehra, MD, MS, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Women more so than men have endothelial dysfunction associated with OSA, “suggesting there is an enhanced sensitivity of the female vascular endothelium to intermittent hypoxia,” said Dr. Mehra, director of sleep disorders research at the Cleveland Clinic and professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland.

Sex-specific differences in the anatomic and physiological characteristics of the upper airway, in fat distribution and in respiratory stability as they relate to OSA have been documented for some time – and today, these and other differences relating to the diagnosis, treatment, and consequences of sleep apnea continue to be studied and elucidated, said Dr. Mehra, Anita Rajagopal, MD, and Chitra Lal, MD, in a session on OSA in women. Each spoke about the breath and implications of these differences, and of increasing recognition of the significance of OSA in women.
 

Likely underdiagnosis

Epidemiologic studies have suggested a three- to fivefold higher prevalence of OSA in men than in women in the general population. But it has also been estimated that 17%-25% of women have sleep apnea, and the prevalence reported in various studies has generally increased with time, said Dr. Rajagopal, department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network in Indianapolis, and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep/Wake Disorders Center, also in Indianapolis.

One population-based study in Sweden, reported in 2013, found OSA (defined as an apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥5) in 50% of women aged 20-70, she noted.

It’s quite possible women are being misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed because of their reporting of different symptoms, Dr. Rajagopal said. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale, commonly used to screen for OSA, has not been validated for use in women and has not been strongly associated with daytime sleepiness in women in population-based studies, she said, noting that women who report similar levels of daytime sleepiness to men are less likely to have an ESS score greater than 10.

“We shouldn’t rule out obstructive sleep apnea in women with a low ESS,” Dr. Rajagopal said in an interview after the meeting. Attentiveness to the symptoms more often reported by women – generalized daytime fatigue/lack of energy, insomnia, morning headaches, mood disturbances, and nightmares – is important, as is performance of overnight polysomnography when a home sleep study is negative and there is clinical suspicion of OSA.Respiratory disturbances in women are frequently associated with arousals – which induce less ventilatory instability in women than in men – rather than oxygen desaturations, leading to underestimation of OSA on home sleep testing. Insomnia associated with OSA in women may also increase the likelihood of a false negative result, Dr. Rajagopal said at the meeting.

“It’s really important [in sleep testing] to consider your AHI values in women,” she said. “The AHI value may not provide a true indication of the degree of sleep fragmentation being experienced by patients.” That OSA symptoms manifest in women with lower AHIs has been elucidated in research showing, for instance, that those with an AHI of 2-5 per hour have a similar level of symptoms to men with an AHI of at least 15 per hour, she said.

Women tend to have a clustering of apnea during REM sleep, and it’s possible that “the long-term effects of REM disruption contribute to greater symptomatology at lower AHI values in women compared to men,” Dr. Rajagopal said.

Also at play are when it comes to testing and diagnosis are several other key sex differences, she said. For one, the upper airways in women are less collapsible and more stable during sleep (most evident during non-REM sleep), and respiratory events during sleep are less frequently associated with complete upper airway collapse.

Women also have shorter apneic episodes, but “the longest apneas are associated with a more severe oxygen desaturation,” she said. Moreover, they have more episodes of upper airway resistance during sleep, which in and of itself “has been shown to produce clinical symptoms such as daytime fatigue and clinical depression.”

In her presentation, Dr. Mehra similarly commented on a likely underdiagnosis of OSA in women. In addition to differing symptoms, including palpitations, “women are less likely to have arousals, and have a lesser degree of nocturnal hypoxia compared to men ... perhaps leading to even more of an underdiagnosis.”
 

Unique consequences

Differences in upper airway physiology and other sex-specific differences impacting OSA susceptibility are at least partly attributable to sex hormones, said Dr. Mehra and Dr. Lal, associate professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

A significant increase in prevalence is seen after menopause, and research has shown that each additional year in menopause is associated with a greater AHI – a “dose-response effect,” Dr. Lal said. An inverse association between hormone replacement therapy and OSA severity has been seen in epidemiological studies including the Sleep Heart Health Study, Dr. Mehra said. But in prospective studies, Dr. Lal noted, hormone replacement therapy has not been shown to decrease AHI.

Experimental and clinical studies suggest that the vascular endothelium is influenced by sex hormones, Dr. Mehra said. Estrogen is known to improve endothelial function by inducing increased nitric oxide bioavailability – important in the setting of hypoxemia, which leads to reduced bioavailability of nitric oxide. “Alterations of sex-specific hormones in OSA may represent a key factor in increasing vulnerability to vascular dysfunction,” Dr. Mehra added.

The Sleep Heart Health Study also documented sex-specific differences, showing a graded increase of troponin with increasing OSA severity category as well as an increase in left ventricular mass thickness, and a 30% increased risk of heart failure or death in women with moderate/severe OSA, compared with women without OSA or with mild OSA, Dr. Mehra said. These findings were not observed in men.

The dominance of REM-related OSA in women raises risk because sleep disturbances during REM sleep are associated with adverse cardiometabolic outcomes including prevalent and incident hypertension, Dr. Mehra noted. “REM-related OSA may also adversely impact glucose metabolism,” she said, “even in the absence of non-REM obstructive sleep apnea.”

Regarding OSA treatment and responsivity, Dr. Mehra said that preliminary, post hoc data from a randomized, controlled trial of the impact of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy on cardiovascular biomarkers showed a sex-specific effect. “There were differences in men versus women in terms of responsiveness with regards to biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress ... with reductions from CPAP observed in women but not in men,” said Dr. Mehra, a co-investigator of the study.

The data suggests, she said that “these biomarkers may be more responsive to treatment and a reversal of sleep apnea pathophysiology in women.”

Women also appear to respond better than men to upper airway nerve stimulation (UAS), she said, referring to an international registry study showing a 3.6-fold higher odds of responsiveness to the therapy relative to men. Women in the study were 60% less likely to be approved by insurance for UAS, however, making it “a public policy issue, said Dr. Mehra, a coinvestigator.

Dr. Rajagopal, Dr. Mehra, and Dr. Lal all reported that they had no potential conflicts of interest.

The reported prevalence and severity of obstructive sleep apnea in women is lower, compared with men, but the consequences of the disease are “at least the same, if not worse,” with women appearing to have greater susceptibility to adverse OSA-related cardiovascular consequences – particularly as it pertains to endothelial dysfunction, Reena Mehra, MD, MS, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Women more so than men have endothelial dysfunction associated with OSA, “suggesting there is an enhanced sensitivity of the female vascular endothelium to intermittent hypoxia,” said Dr. Mehra, director of sleep disorders research at the Cleveland Clinic and professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland.

Sex-specific differences in the anatomic and physiological characteristics of the upper airway, in fat distribution and in respiratory stability as they relate to OSA have been documented for some time – and today, these and other differences relating to the diagnosis, treatment, and consequences of sleep apnea continue to be studied and elucidated, said Dr. Mehra, Anita Rajagopal, MD, and Chitra Lal, MD, in a session on OSA in women. Each spoke about the breath and implications of these differences, and of increasing recognition of the significance of OSA in women.
 

Likely underdiagnosis

Epidemiologic studies have suggested a three- to fivefold higher prevalence of OSA in men than in women in the general population. But it has also been estimated that 17%-25% of women have sleep apnea, and the prevalence reported in various studies has generally increased with time, said Dr. Rajagopal, department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network in Indianapolis, and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep/Wake Disorders Center, also in Indianapolis.

One population-based study in Sweden, reported in 2013, found OSA (defined as an apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥5) in 50% of women aged 20-70, she noted.

It’s quite possible women are being misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed because of their reporting of different symptoms, Dr. Rajagopal said. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale, commonly used to screen for OSA, has not been validated for use in women and has not been strongly associated with daytime sleepiness in women in population-based studies, she said, noting that women who report similar levels of daytime sleepiness to men are less likely to have an ESS score greater than 10.

“We shouldn’t rule out obstructive sleep apnea in women with a low ESS,” Dr. Rajagopal said in an interview after the meeting. Attentiveness to the symptoms more often reported by women – generalized daytime fatigue/lack of energy, insomnia, morning headaches, mood disturbances, and nightmares – is important, as is performance of overnight polysomnography when a home sleep study is negative and there is clinical suspicion of OSA.Respiratory disturbances in women are frequently associated with arousals – which induce less ventilatory instability in women than in men – rather than oxygen desaturations, leading to underestimation of OSA on home sleep testing. Insomnia associated with OSA in women may also increase the likelihood of a false negative result, Dr. Rajagopal said at the meeting.

“It’s really important [in sleep testing] to consider your AHI values in women,” she said. “The AHI value may not provide a true indication of the degree of sleep fragmentation being experienced by patients.” That OSA symptoms manifest in women with lower AHIs has been elucidated in research showing, for instance, that those with an AHI of 2-5 per hour have a similar level of symptoms to men with an AHI of at least 15 per hour, she said.

Women tend to have a clustering of apnea during REM sleep, and it’s possible that “the long-term effects of REM disruption contribute to greater symptomatology at lower AHI values in women compared to men,” Dr. Rajagopal said.

Also at play are when it comes to testing and diagnosis are several other key sex differences, she said. For one, the upper airways in women are less collapsible and more stable during sleep (most evident during non-REM sleep), and respiratory events during sleep are less frequently associated with complete upper airway collapse.

Women also have shorter apneic episodes, but “the longest apneas are associated with a more severe oxygen desaturation,” she said. Moreover, they have more episodes of upper airway resistance during sleep, which in and of itself “has been shown to produce clinical symptoms such as daytime fatigue and clinical depression.”

In her presentation, Dr. Mehra similarly commented on a likely underdiagnosis of OSA in women. In addition to differing symptoms, including palpitations, “women are less likely to have arousals, and have a lesser degree of nocturnal hypoxia compared to men ... perhaps leading to even more of an underdiagnosis.”
 

Unique consequences

Differences in upper airway physiology and other sex-specific differences impacting OSA susceptibility are at least partly attributable to sex hormones, said Dr. Mehra and Dr. Lal, associate professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

A significant increase in prevalence is seen after menopause, and research has shown that each additional year in menopause is associated with a greater AHI – a “dose-response effect,” Dr. Lal said. An inverse association between hormone replacement therapy and OSA severity has been seen in epidemiological studies including the Sleep Heart Health Study, Dr. Mehra said. But in prospective studies, Dr. Lal noted, hormone replacement therapy has not been shown to decrease AHI.

Experimental and clinical studies suggest that the vascular endothelium is influenced by sex hormones, Dr. Mehra said. Estrogen is known to improve endothelial function by inducing increased nitric oxide bioavailability – important in the setting of hypoxemia, which leads to reduced bioavailability of nitric oxide. “Alterations of sex-specific hormones in OSA may represent a key factor in increasing vulnerability to vascular dysfunction,” Dr. Mehra added.

The Sleep Heart Health Study also documented sex-specific differences, showing a graded increase of troponin with increasing OSA severity category as well as an increase in left ventricular mass thickness, and a 30% increased risk of heart failure or death in women with moderate/severe OSA, compared with women without OSA or with mild OSA, Dr. Mehra said. These findings were not observed in men.

The dominance of REM-related OSA in women raises risk because sleep disturbances during REM sleep are associated with adverse cardiometabolic outcomes including prevalent and incident hypertension, Dr. Mehra noted. “REM-related OSA may also adversely impact glucose metabolism,” she said, “even in the absence of non-REM obstructive sleep apnea.”

Regarding OSA treatment and responsivity, Dr. Mehra said that preliminary, post hoc data from a randomized, controlled trial of the impact of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy on cardiovascular biomarkers showed a sex-specific effect. “There were differences in men versus women in terms of responsiveness with regards to biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress ... with reductions from CPAP observed in women but not in men,” said Dr. Mehra, a co-investigator of the study.

The data suggests, she said that “these biomarkers may be more responsive to treatment and a reversal of sleep apnea pathophysiology in women.”

Women also appear to respond better than men to upper airway nerve stimulation (UAS), she said, referring to an international registry study showing a 3.6-fold higher odds of responsiveness to the therapy relative to men. Women in the study were 60% less likely to be approved by insurance for UAS, however, making it “a public policy issue, said Dr. Mehra, a coinvestigator.

Dr. Rajagopal, Dr. Mehra, and Dr. Lal all reported that they had no potential conflicts of interest.

The reported prevalence and severity of obstructive sleep apnea in women is lower, compared with men, but the consequences of the disease are “at least the same, if not worse,” with women appearing to have greater susceptibility to adverse OSA-related cardiovascular consequences – particularly as it pertains to endothelial dysfunction, Reena Mehra, MD, MS, said at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Women more so than men have endothelial dysfunction associated with OSA, “suggesting there is an enhanced sensitivity of the female vascular endothelium to intermittent hypoxia,” said Dr. Mehra, director of sleep disorders research at the Cleveland Clinic and professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University, also in Cleveland.

Sex-specific differences in the anatomic and physiological characteristics of the upper airway, in fat distribution and in respiratory stability as they relate to OSA have been documented for some time – and today, these and other differences relating to the diagnosis, treatment, and consequences of sleep apnea continue to be studied and elucidated, said Dr. Mehra, Anita Rajagopal, MD, and Chitra Lal, MD, in a session on OSA in women. Each spoke about the breath and implications of these differences, and of increasing recognition of the significance of OSA in women.
 

Likely underdiagnosis

Epidemiologic studies have suggested a three- to fivefold higher prevalence of OSA in men than in women in the general population. But it has also been estimated that 17%-25% of women have sleep apnea, and the prevalence reported in various studies has generally increased with time, said Dr. Rajagopal, department medical director for sleep medicine at Community Physician Network in Indianapolis, and medical director of the Community Health Network Sleep/Wake Disorders Center, also in Indianapolis.

One population-based study in Sweden, reported in 2013, found OSA (defined as an apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] ≥5) in 50% of women aged 20-70, she noted.

It’s quite possible women are being misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed because of their reporting of different symptoms, Dr. Rajagopal said. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale, commonly used to screen for OSA, has not been validated for use in women and has not been strongly associated with daytime sleepiness in women in population-based studies, she said, noting that women who report similar levels of daytime sleepiness to men are less likely to have an ESS score greater than 10.

“We shouldn’t rule out obstructive sleep apnea in women with a low ESS,” Dr. Rajagopal said in an interview after the meeting. Attentiveness to the symptoms more often reported by women – generalized daytime fatigue/lack of energy, insomnia, morning headaches, mood disturbances, and nightmares – is important, as is performance of overnight polysomnography when a home sleep study is negative and there is clinical suspicion of OSA.Respiratory disturbances in women are frequently associated with arousals – which induce less ventilatory instability in women than in men – rather than oxygen desaturations, leading to underestimation of OSA on home sleep testing. Insomnia associated with OSA in women may also increase the likelihood of a false negative result, Dr. Rajagopal said at the meeting.

“It’s really important [in sleep testing] to consider your AHI values in women,” she said. “The AHI value may not provide a true indication of the degree of sleep fragmentation being experienced by patients.” That OSA symptoms manifest in women with lower AHIs has been elucidated in research showing, for instance, that those with an AHI of 2-5 per hour have a similar level of symptoms to men with an AHI of at least 15 per hour, she said.

Women tend to have a clustering of apnea during REM sleep, and it’s possible that “the long-term effects of REM disruption contribute to greater symptomatology at lower AHI values in women compared to men,” Dr. Rajagopal said.

Also at play are when it comes to testing and diagnosis are several other key sex differences, she said. For one, the upper airways in women are less collapsible and more stable during sleep (most evident during non-REM sleep), and respiratory events during sleep are less frequently associated with complete upper airway collapse.

Women also have shorter apneic episodes, but “the longest apneas are associated with a more severe oxygen desaturation,” she said. Moreover, they have more episodes of upper airway resistance during sleep, which in and of itself “has been shown to produce clinical symptoms such as daytime fatigue and clinical depression.”

In her presentation, Dr. Mehra similarly commented on a likely underdiagnosis of OSA in women. In addition to differing symptoms, including palpitations, “women are less likely to have arousals, and have a lesser degree of nocturnal hypoxia compared to men ... perhaps leading to even more of an underdiagnosis.”
 

Unique consequences

Differences in upper airway physiology and other sex-specific differences impacting OSA susceptibility are at least partly attributable to sex hormones, said Dr. Mehra and Dr. Lal, associate professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

A significant increase in prevalence is seen after menopause, and research has shown that each additional year in menopause is associated with a greater AHI – a “dose-response effect,” Dr. Lal said. An inverse association between hormone replacement therapy and OSA severity has been seen in epidemiological studies including the Sleep Heart Health Study, Dr. Mehra said. But in prospective studies, Dr. Lal noted, hormone replacement therapy has not been shown to decrease AHI.

Experimental and clinical studies suggest that the vascular endothelium is influenced by sex hormones, Dr. Mehra said. Estrogen is known to improve endothelial function by inducing increased nitric oxide bioavailability – important in the setting of hypoxemia, which leads to reduced bioavailability of nitric oxide. “Alterations of sex-specific hormones in OSA may represent a key factor in increasing vulnerability to vascular dysfunction,” Dr. Mehra added.

The Sleep Heart Health Study also documented sex-specific differences, showing a graded increase of troponin with increasing OSA severity category as well as an increase in left ventricular mass thickness, and a 30% increased risk of heart failure or death in women with moderate/severe OSA, compared with women without OSA or with mild OSA, Dr. Mehra said. These findings were not observed in men.

The dominance of REM-related OSA in women raises risk because sleep disturbances during REM sleep are associated with adverse cardiometabolic outcomes including prevalent and incident hypertension, Dr. Mehra noted. “REM-related OSA may also adversely impact glucose metabolism,” she said, “even in the absence of non-REM obstructive sleep apnea.”

Regarding OSA treatment and responsivity, Dr. Mehra said that preliminary, post hoc data from a randomized, controlled trial of the impact of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy on cardiovascular biomarkers showed a sex-specific effect. “There were differences in men versus women in terms of responsiveness with regards to biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress ... with reductions from CPAP observed in women but not in men,” said Dr. Mehra, a co-investigator of the study.

The data suggests, she said that “these biomarkers may be more responsive to treatment and a reversal of sleep apnea pathophysiology in women.”

Women also appear to respond better than men to upper airway nerve stimulation (UAS), she said, referring to an international registry study showing a 3.6-fold higher odds of responsiveness to the therapy relative to men. Women in the study were 60% less likely to be approved by insurance for UAS, however, making it “a public policy issue, said Dr. Mehra, a coinvestigator.

Dr. Rajagopal, Dr. Mehra, and Dr. Lal all reported that they had no potential conflicts of interest.

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.

The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.

Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.

The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .

Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.

He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.

Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”

The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.

Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”

If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”

He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”

The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”

Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.

“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
 

Useful between updates

Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”

New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”

“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”

Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”

In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”

Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”

“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”

Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.

Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”

He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”

Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”

He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”

Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”

Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.

“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.

One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.

“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”

He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”

No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.

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

Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.

The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.

Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.

The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .

Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.

He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.

Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”

The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.

Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”

If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”

He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”

The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”

Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.

“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
 

Useful between updates

Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”

New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”

“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”

Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”

In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”

Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”

“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”

Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.

Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”

He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”

Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”

He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”

Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”

Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.

“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.

One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.

“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”

He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”

No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.

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

Very-high-risk dyslipidemia patients unlikely to reach goal with a statin should be given combination statin–ezetimibe (Nustendi) therapy upfront, rather than wasting time and resources on trialing a statin alone, suggests a practical guidance document.

The document points out that, even with high-intensity statin therapy, patients achieve a reduction in low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of around 50%, which for many is not enough for them to achieve the stringent new guideline targets deemed necessary for risk reduction.

Instead, clinicians should determine at the first visit whether their patient, if they are not already on a statin, is likely to reach their goal with that drug alone, and if not, should immediately start them on the combination.

The guidance, which aims to offer a practical way to implement the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemias, was published April 12 in Atherosclerosis .

Lead author Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, discussed the new practical guidance at the recent European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2021 Virtual Congress.

He explained that the motivation for creating the practical guidance was “very simple” and concerns something already embedded in the ESC/EAS guidelines; it’s just that “people didn’t notice” it.

Dr. Catapano, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan and past president of the EAS, said the guidelines set out the average reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels “you can get by starting with high-intensity therapy and/or starting with a combination therapy.”

The guidelines, he said, suggest steps for achieving lipid control: Begin with a statin, add ezetimibe if the patient is still not at goal, and proceed to a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor if the patient is still not at target levels.

Dr. Catapano added that, “having said that, at the beginning, you can guess by knowing how far you are from the goal as to whether a statin by itself with help you get [there].”

If clinicians follow the new practical guidance of giving upfront combination statin–ezetimibe therapy in very-high-risk patients with high LDL-cholesterol levels, it will “save a lot of time, a lot of clinic visits, and will you get you to goal earlier.”

He gave the example of a patient who has an LDL-cholesterol level of 190 mg/dL, who would be classified as being at very high risk. With the target goal of 55 mg/dL, “you would never be able to get them to goal [with only] a high-intensity statin.”

The addition of ezetimibe to the regimen of this patient would have two advantages, Dr. Catapano said. The first is that “you get to goal more easily,” and the second is that, with the drugs available as a single-pill combination, it “makes it easier for the patient to be compliant.”

Consequently, there will be no “unnecessary back and forth,” he said. “Some of these are young people. They go to work; one less visit is less time lost at work.

“This is a practical issue,” he added. “It doesn’t contradict the guidelines,” it’s about “everyday clinical practice.”
 

Useful between updates

Responding to the guidance, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, president-elect of the American Heart Association (AHA), told this news organization that “this kind of document can be useful in periods between updates of the formal guidelines.”

New evidence comes out in between guidelines, and they “don’t often provide us with all of the practical solutions needed for everyday guidance when we’re dealing with individual patients with real-world problems.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones, who is chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, said the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines set “quite aggressive targets, particularly for LDL cholesterol … but didn’t really provide much practical advice on how clinicians could get there for their patients.”

“While this document doesn’t completely address all patient groups, it does provide some good practical advice,” recognizing that “if you need to get to a certain LDL target, it’s unlikely you’re going to get there with just a statin in certain types of patients,” and “if you need a certain amount of LDL lowering, it’s certainly reasonable to start upfront with a statin and ezetimibe and see how you do.”

Crucially, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believes that the practical guidance does “flesh out some of the details the guidelines didn’t address.”

In terms of the aggressive LDL-cholesterol targets set out in the original guidelines, he said that “everyone agrees that lower is always better … and we’ve not get yet found a level that is too low.”

Further, “we’re certainly pushing patients lower and lower, especially with the use of PCSK9 inhibitors, so I think the general philosophy is consistent and correct,” although “it’s difficult to point to great evidence from clinical trials that specially says that 55 mg/dL or 40 mg/dL is the right target for a given group of patients.”

“There’s really very limited evidence for those specific numbers,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added, “but I think everyone agrees, especially for patients at higher risk, the lower we can get them the better. What really matters, and what this document starts to address, is how we achieve as low as possible, and I think there are some important considerations that they take into account.”

Aside from how far patients need their LDL cholesterol lowered from baseline, there are issues like cost and patient preference for different types of medication, and these “weren’t particularly well addressed in the guidelines,” he added.

Scott D. Isaacs, MD, Secretary of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), commented that the ESC/EAS recommendations echo the 2017 AACE/American College of Endocrinology guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

He said that both guidelines “call for the need to lower LDL cholesterol as much as possible to prevent cardiovascular disease.”

He agreed, however, that high- or very-high-risk patients “have aggressive LDL targets that are often lower than what can be accomplished with high-dose, high-intensity statin monotherapy. Therefore, starting with combination therapy … will get more patients to goal more quickly and will prevent more cardiovascular events.”

Isaacs added: “It just makes sense that if you know a drug will not be strong enough, then you should start with two drugs.”

He noted that this approach is commonly used for conditions such as diabetes and hypertension, “when monotherapy is not expected to achieve the desired results.”

Dr. Isaacs also underlined that the combination of a statin plus ezetimibe “is appealing because of the price and ease of use.”

Although PCSK9 inhibitors are more potent and achieve even lower LDL levels, “the higher price and need to take an injection has limited their use,” he noted.

“One would expect that as the prices of PCSK9 inhibitors come down, their place in care pathways will move up since they are more effective and have proven cardiovascular benefit, but for now, statin plus ezetimibe is a potent and cost-effective way to achieve LDL targets in high- and very-high-risk patients,” Dr. Isaacs concluded.

One issue Dr. Lloyd-Jones raised with the ESC/EAS guidelines is that they seem to have put a lot of weight Mendelian randomization analysis.

“Those are useful in understanding whether having low LDL-cholesterol levels or triglycerides naturally are better for you – of course they are – but they actually provide no evidence about treatment effects, so I think what we need from that is actual data from the clinical trials to understand the treatment effects, both positive and negative.”

He added that that “really then helps us to drive to how and in whom we want to achieve the lowest levels possible.”

Dr. Lloyd-Jones said that Mendelian randomization analyses “continue to crop in a lot of these ESC and EAS documents,” and although they are “elegant and interesting,” they “don’t really inform treatment at all.”

No funding declared. Catapano declares relationships with Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, Merck, Mediolanum, SigmaTau, Menarini, Kowa, Recordati, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Aegerion and Amgen.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The AMPLITUDE-O phase 3 trial showed that investigational drug efpeglenatide (Sanofi/Hanmi Pharmaceutical) – an exendin-based glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist – was safe and reduced the risk of worsening renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk.

That is, in patients with type 2 diabetes and a high prevalence of cardiovascular and kidney disease with a high hemoglobin A1c and moderate use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) significantly and safely reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, said study investigator Naveed Sattar, MD.

Dr. Sattar, of the University of Glasgow, summarized the results during a symposium at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AMPLITUDE-O was a cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) in more than 4,000 high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes followed for a mean of 1.8 years.

Compared with patients who received placebo, those who received either dose of efpeglenatide had a 27% lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes; a 21% lower risk of expanded MACE (MACE, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina); a 32% lower risk of a composite renal outcome (decrease in kidney function or macroalbuminuria); and a 27% lower risk of MACE or noncardiovascular death.

And “these effects were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), or metformin use,” Dr. Sattar pointed out.
 

New and important findings, but Sanofi no longer developing drug

The trial’s primary investigator, Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, pointed out several new and important findings of the drug and study, compared with CVOTs of seven other GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The trial included more patients (32%) with renal disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) than the other trials.

There were enough patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors at baseline (15%) to show no difference in the effect of a GLP-1 receptor agonist in the presence/absence of an SGLT2 inhibitor.

So this is the first clearly positive GLP-1 receptor agonist CVOT with an exendin-4–based GLP-1 receptor agonist showing that the GLP-1 receptor agonist class is cardioprotective whether or not it is based on a human or animal GLP-1 structure.

And there was a significant reduction in MACE or noncardiovascular death.

“This would be good for people with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or renal disease at high risk for cardiovascular and/or renal outcomes,” said Dr. Gerstein, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

However, the trial sponsor, Sanofi, is no longer developing the drug. The company returned the rights back to Hanmi, which had started this line of research. “Hopefully” Hanmi or another company will develop the drug further, said Dr. Gerstein.  
 

Sicker patients than in 7 other GLP-1 agonist CVOTs

Efpeglenatide – like two other drugs in the class, exenatide and lixisenatide – is an exendin-based GLP-1 agonist. (Exendin-4 is a peptide found in the saliva of the Gila monster lizard.) In contrast, liraglutide, dulaglutide, albiglutide, and semaglutide are human-analog GLP-1 agonists.

A meta-analysis of the seven CVOTs of these other drugs in this class reported, among other things, that “overall, GLP-1 agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12%.”

Amanda I. Adler, MD, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine and health policy, University of Oxford, (England), and the assigned independent commenter at the symposium, cited many things “the investigators did well.”

Compared with the CVOTs of the other GLP-1 receptor agonists – ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide) – patients in the AMPLITUDE-O trial were sicker, she noted.

AMPLITUDE-O participants had the longest duration of diabetes (15 years), lowest mean eGFR of 72 ml/min per 1.73 m², highest A1c (8.9%), and highest percentage of insulin use (62%), she noted. 

The study was primarily a safety and noninferiority trial, she pointed out, although a series of superiority analyses were prespecified that would be conducted if the drug was found to be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of 3-point MACE.

It was good that patients were stratified according to SGLT2 inhibitor use – into current user, likely future user, and not likely future user – although “likely future user” may have misclassified some patients.

The various stakeholders – patients, regulators, doctors, payers, statisticians, and the marketing department of any company providing the drug – would want to know more, such as quality of life, long-term effects, and cost, she observed.
 

Meta-analysis of 8 CVOTs shows stronger class benefit

Dr. Sattar presented an eight-trial meta-analysis (an update of the seven-trial meta-analysis that included data from AMPLITUDE-O), which showed patients with type 2 diabetes who received GLP-1 agonists had a decreased rate of the 3-component MACE and decreased individual components (stroke more so than MI) – regardless of the structure of these drugs (exenatide or human analogs).

The updated meta-analysis also showed that, overall, GLP-1 agonists decreased all-cause mortality and possibly reduced the risk of heart failure hospitalization (perhaps linked to atherosclerotic benefits) as well as renal dysfunction.

There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycemia, retinopathy, or pancreatic adverse effects.
 

AMPLITUDE-O: Design and findings

AMPLITUDE-O included 4,076 adults with type 2 diabetes from 344 sites in 28 countries who were screened from May 2018 to April 2019. Participants also had cardiovascular disease or kidney disease (eGFR, 25-60 mL/min) plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor. They were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous efpeglenatide (4 or 6 mg/week) or placebo.

Patients were a mean age of 65, most (87%) were White, and 33% were female. They had a mean A1c of 8.9%. Most (90%) had a history of cardiovascular disease and 31% had current kidney disease.

MACE occurred in 189 participants (7.0%) assigned to efpeglenatide and 125 participants (9.2%) assigned to receive placebo (3.9 vs. 5.3 events/100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.92; P < .001 for noninferiority; P = .007 for superiority).

The composite renal outcome event (decreased kidney function or macroalbuminuria) occurred in 353 participants (13.0%) assigned to receive efpeglenatide and in 250 participants (18.4%) assigned to receive placebo (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.79; P < .001).

Diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, or bloating occurred more frequently with efpeglenatide than placebo. 

The study was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Sattar has reported being on advisory panels for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Gerstein has reported being a member of advisory panels for Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and a consultant for Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Kowa, and Sanofi. He reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and having other relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, DKSH, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Zuellig Pharma. Dr. Adler has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

The recently licensed weight-loss drug semaglutide 2.4 mg/week (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) “is likely to usher in a new era in the medical treatment of obesity,” Lee M. Kaplan, MD, PhD, stated at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, held virtually.

Dr. Kaplan discussed the clinical implications of caring for patients with obesity now that the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist is approved in the United States for weight loss.

Weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg was twice that achieved with liraglutide 3 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) – that is, roughly a 10%-15% weight loss at 68 weeks, said Dr. Kaplan, who was not involved in the pivotal STEP clinical trials of the agent.  

“I think as we start to see more data come in over the next couple of years,” including from the cardiovascular outcome trial SELECT, he continued, “we’ll be able to use the data to create a nuanced [individualized patient treatment] approach, but we’ll also be able to use our clinical experience, which will grow rapidly over the next few years.”

In the future, semaglutide is likely to be combined with other drugs to provide even greater weight loss, predicts Dr. Kaplan, director of the Obesity, Metabolism, and Nutrition Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

In the meantime, “to be effective, semaglutide needs to be used,” he stressed, while noting that responses to the drug vary by individual, and so this will need to be taken into account.

“Obesity needs to be recognized as a disease in its own right, as well as a risk factor for numerous other diseases, [and] equitable access to obesity treatment needs to be broadened,” he emphasized.
 

Four pivotal phase 3 trials

As previously reported, four pivotal 68-week, phase 3 clinical trials in the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) program tested the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in more than 4,500 adults with overweight or obesity.

The trials have been published in high profile journals – the New England Journal of Medicine (STEP 1), The Lancet (STEP 2), and JAMA (STEP 3 and STEP 4) – said Robert F. Kushner, MD.

“I would encourage all of you to download and read each of these trials on your own,” Dr. Kushner, professor of medicine and medicine education at Northwestern University, Chicago, and coauthor of STEP 1, said before presenting a top-level review of key results.

STEP 1 examined weight management, STEP 3 added a background of intensive behavioral therapy, STEP 4 investigated sustained weight management, and STEP 2 (unlike the others) investigated weight management in patients with type 2 diabetes, he summarized.

In STEP 1, patients who received semaglutide had an average 15% weight loss, and those who stayed on the drug had a 17% weight loss, compared with the 2.4% weight loss in the placebo group.

“One-third of individuals in the trial achieved at least a 20% weight loss or more,” Dr. Kushner said, which is “really phenomenal.”

The results of STEP 3 “suggest that semaglutide with monthly brief lifestyle counseling alone is sufficient to produce a mean weight loss of 15%,” he noted, as adding a low-calorie diet and intensive behavior therapy sped up the initial weight loss but did not increase the final weight loss.

A post hoc analysis of STEP 2 showed “it’s clear that improvement in A1c” is greater with at least a 10% weight loss versus a smaller weight loss, Dr. Kushner said. A1c dropped by 2.2% versus 1.3%, with these two weight losses, respectively.

In STEP 4, after dose escalation to 2.4 mg at 20 weeks, patients had lost 10.6% of their initial weight. At 68 weeks, those who were switched to placebo at 20 weeks had lost 5.4% of their initial weight, whereas those who remained on semaglutide had lost 17.7% of their initial weight.

This shows that “if you remove the drug, the disease starts to come back,” Dr. Kushner pointed out.

Nausea, the most common side effect, occurred in 20% of patients, but was mostly mild or moderate, and gastrointestinal effects including constipation, vomiting, and diarrhea were transient and occurred early in the dose escalation phase.
 

Large individual variability, combination therapies on horizon

Dr. Kaplan pointed out, however, that “like [with] other antiobesity therapies ... there’s a large patient-to-patient variability.”

A third of patients exhibit more than 20% weight loss, and 10% exhibit more than 30% weight loss – approaching the efficacy of bariatric surgery.

However, nearly 10% of patients without diabetes and upwards of 30% of patients with diabetes will experience less than 5% weight loss, he said.

Therefore, “success or failure in one patient doesn’t predict response in another, and we should always remember that as we treat different patients with these medications,” Dr. Kaplan advised.

A recent phase 1b study suggests that combination therapy with semaglutide and the amylin agonist cagrilintide ups weight loss, as previously reported.

In this short trial with no lifestyle modification, it took 16 weeks for patients to reach full dosing, and at 20 weeks, patients on semaglutide had lost 8% of their initial weight, whereas those on combination therapy had lost 17% of their initial weight.

“There’s hope that, in combination with cagrilintide and probably with several other agents that are still in early development, we’ll be seeing average weight loss that is in the range of that seen with bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kushner said.
 

Doctors discuss two hypothetical cases

Session moderator Julio Rosenstock, MD, of the University of Texas, Dallas, a coinvestigator in several of the STEP trials, invited Dr. Kaplan and two other panelists to explain how they would manage two hypothetical patients.

Case 1

You have a patient with type 2 diabetes, a body mass index of 32, 33 kg/m², and an A1c of 7.5% or 8% on metformin. Would you use semaglutide 1 mg (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) that is indicated for type 2 diabetes, or would you use semaglutide 2.4 mg that is indicated for obesity and risk factors?

“We have the answer to that from STEP 2,” said Melanie J. Davies, MB ChB, MD, professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester, England, who led the STEP 2 trial.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“For some patients, the 1-mg dose, which we use routinely in the clinic, may be reasonable to get good glycemic control for cardiovascular protection and will obviously achieve some weight loss. But if you really want to go for the weight-related comorbidities, then the 2.4-mg dose is what you need,” she said.

“A lot of [clinicians] might say: ‘I’ll see how [the patient goes] with the 1-mg dose, and then maybe if they’re not losing the weight and not getting to glycemic target, then maybe I’ll switch to 2.4 mg,’” said John Wilding, MD, who leads clinical research into obesity, diabetes, and endocrinology at the University of Liverpool, England, and led the STEP 1 trial.

“But the STEP 2 data show very clearly that you get almost the same A1c,” Dr. Rosenstock interjected. “I would go for 2.4 mg. The patient has a BMI of 32, 33 kg/m². I would hit hard the BMI. We need to change that paradigm.”

“For other diseases we don’t always go to the maximum dose that’s available. We go to the dose that’s necessary to achieve the clinical endpoint that we want,” Dr. Kaplan noted. “I think one of the challenges is going to be to learn how to clinically nuance our therapy the way we do for other diseases.”

“That is the usual thinking,” Dr. Rosenstock agreed. But “with the 2.4-mg dose, one third get a 20% reduction of BMI, and 10% get almost a 30% reduction – and you [aren’t] going to see that with semaglutide 1 mg!”

“That’s true,” Dr. Kaplan conceded. However, a patient with a relatively low BMI of 32, 33 kg/m² may not need the higher dose, unlike a patient who has a BMI of 45 kg/m² and diabetes. But we’re going to find that out over the next couple of years, he expects.

Case 2

You have a patient with a BMI of 31 kg/m² who is newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Why should you start that patient with metformin? Why won’t you start with something that will directly tackle obesity and get the patient to lose 20 pounds and for sure the blood sugar is going to be better?

“I think if I have someone who is really keen to put their diabetes into remission,” Dr. Wilding said, “this would be a fantastic approach because they would have a really high chance of doing that.”

The prediabetes data from STEP showed that “we can put a lot of people from prediabetes back to normal glucose tolerance,” Dr. Wilding noted. “Maybe we can put people with early diabetes back to normal as well. I think that’s a trial that really does need to be done,” he said.

“We’re going to have to figure out the best pathway forward,” Dr. Kaplan observed, noting that multiple stakeholders, including payers, patients, and providers, play a role in the uptake of new obesity drugs.

“Do you think we will see less bariatric surgery with these drugs?” Dr. Rosenstock asked Dr. Kaplan.

“I think you have to remember that of the millions and millions of people with obesity, a very small portion are currently treated with antiobesity medication, and an even smaller portion are getting bariatric surgery,” Dr. Kaplan replied.

“In the United States, 90% of people who get bariatric surgery are self-referred,” he said, so, “I think initially we are not going to see much of a change” in rates of bariatric surgery.

Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Kaplan, Dr. Wilding, and Dr. Davies disclosed ties with Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies.

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

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

When it comes to medical therapy after a coronary revascularization procedure, more is better. Patients started and then maintained indefinitely on more rather than fewer of the drugs identified as optimal medical therapy (OMT) achieve a major survival benefit 10 years later, according to long-term follow-up from an extended analysis of the SYNTAX trial.

Courtesy Cardiovascular Research Foundation

For the survival benefit at 10 years, “the present study suggests that at least three types of optimal medical therapy should be maintained for at least 5 years after revascularization,” reported a multinational team of cardiovascular specialists led by Hideyuki Kawashima, MD and Patrick Serruys, MD, who both have affiliations with the department of cardiology of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

The SYNTAX trial was conducted to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with previously untreated three-vessel and/or left main disease (N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72). The conclusion from that study, published in 2009 and subsequently reinforced by a 5-year follow-up, was that CABG should remain the standard of care for complex lesions.
 

Optimal medical therapy defined

In the course of SYNTAX, the impact of OMT on outcome was also evaluated in a subanalysis. At 5 years, there was a mortality advantage for those receiving an antiplatelet drug, a statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a beta-blocker when compared with fewer of these agents.

When an investigator-initiated extension of SYNTAX, called SYNTAXES, was conducted to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG at 10 years, it also permitted an extended analysis of OMT. Although the primary comparison of SYNTAXES, reported 2 years ago, did not show a significant difference between PCI and CABG for mortality at 10 years, there was a difference for OMT.

When investigators compared treatment with three or more OMT agents with that with two or fewer OMT drugs at 5 years, the result for all-cause death at 10 years translated into a more than 50% relative reduction (hazard ratio, 0.47; P = .002). The absolute difference in mortality was a more than 6% reduction (13.1% vs. 19.9%).
 

OMT data offer major message

The current study is considered to have a major message for patients as well as physicians.

“OMT even outweighs the survival benefit from revascularization alone, so our patients should convince themselves of the value of rigorous adherence and compliance,” Dr. Serruys said in an interview. According to him, these are compelling data for telling patients that OMT “is the best insurance for extended survival.” We now know from these data “the longer, the better.”

The same message from these data extends to physicians.

“I wish I could understand the apparent blind spot physicians have with respect to prescribing OMT despite the overwhelming benefit from multiple clinical trials,” said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine, Boston University.

Dr. Boden was a coauthor of an editorial accompanying the newly published SYNTAXES subanalysis. In the editorial, he noted that OMT following revascularization and in other high-risk patients “has been unacceptably low,” but he was asked to expand on the lessons from the newly released SYNTAXES subanalysis in an interview.

“There has often been a belief that revascularization negates the need for OMT and that’s why the SYNTAXES trial 10-year mortality reduction – which builds upon an earlier 5-year mortality reduction analysis – is so important,” he said.
 

Patients should take OMT long term

These data “should be both a motivator for physicians to prescribe OMT and for patients to remain adherent to OMT,” he said. “It is the best warranty to blunt the progression of atherosclerosis and to reduce subsequent cardiac events.”

For the 10-year subanalysis of OMT in SYNTAXES, the patients were stratified by the number of OMTs they were taking at 5 years after revascularization and then evaluated for survival at 10 years. Of the 1,472 patients available for analysis at 5 years, only 678 (46%) were on OMT. The other 794 patients were not.

Graphically, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for those on three types of OMT was consistently beneath that of those on four OMTs, but the gap narrowed over time. At the end of 10 years, the advantage of the four-drug OMT was not statistically significant relative to three or fewer (13.1% vs. 12.7%).
 

Statins and antiplatelets show largest effect

When analyzed individually and in different combinations, the agents with OMT did not appear to be equal. For example, the biggest survival gap at 10 years was for those who were on an antiplatelet therapy and a statin at 5 years relative to those who were not on either (13.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .006). Even after adjustment, there was nearly 45% survival benefit for these two agents (HR, 0.556; P = .02).

Conversely, the 10-year survival advantage for being on a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor at 5 years versus not being exposed to this therapy was small and nonsignificant (14.7% vs. 13.7%; P = .651).

The precise proportion of patients who were prescribed and adhered to OMT between 5 years and 10 years is unknown, acknowledged the authors, so conclusions are limited about the added benefit of 10- versus 5-year OMT, although the authors presume that a substantial proportion of those adherent for 5 years would likely continue on these therapies.

It can be said with confidence that those adherent for at least 5 years are more likely to be alive at 10 years than those who are not, according to Dr. Boden. He considers these data a call for physicians and all high-risk patients, not just those who have undergone revascularization, to take these standard therapies.

There are plenty of data to “show how poorly we treat patients with OMT,” said Dr. Boden, citing several studies. In one, which looked at OMT in a nationally representative sample in the United States, only a third of patients with angina were taking an antiplatelet, a statin, and a beta-blocker, all of which are indicated.

“Hospitalization for revascularization provides an opportune time to capture the attention of patients and their physicians,” he wrote in his editorial. He called OMT “an imperative to optimize clinical outcomes.”

Many of the investigators involved in the SYNTAXES subanalysis, including Dr. Serruys, have financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Boston Scientific, which provided the initial funding for the SYNTAX trial. Dr. Boden reports no potential conflicts of interest.

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.

“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.

SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
 

Significant differences at each dose level

Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.

One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.

The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.

The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.

The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect

Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .

“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
 

The important issue of dose

But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.

“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.

Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.

Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.

A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
 

Low rates of hypoglycemia

Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.

These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.

Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.

SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
 

Several more tirzepatide trials

Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.

The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.

The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.

“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.

SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
 

Significant differences at each dose level

Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.

One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.

The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.

The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.

The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect

Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .

“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
 

The important issue of dose

But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.

“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.

Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.

Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.

A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
 

Low rates of hypoglycemia

Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.

These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.

Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.

SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
 

Several more tirzepatide trials

Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.

The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.

The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Tirzepatide, a novel “twincretin” agent, was superior to 1-mg semaglutide treatments for reducing both hemoglobin A1c levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes in a pivotal, 40-week, head-to-head trial with nearly 1,900 randomized patients, one of four positive pivotal trial results reported for tirzepatide at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Across all four studies we see a significant and clinically meaningful decrease in A1c, and robust weight loss. The results exceeded our expectations” for both these outcomes, said Laura Fernández Landó, MD, senior medical director for tirzepatide at Lilly, the company developing the agent, and a coauthor on the semaglutide comparison study as well as on other tirzepatide reports at the meeting.

“This opens up a new avenue for results in diabetes therapy,” Jens Juul Holst, MD, remarked in a press conference.

SURPASS-2 compared three different tirzepatide doses delivered once weekly by subcutaneous injection against a 1-mg weekly, subcutaneous dose of semaglutide (Ozempic) in 1,879 adults who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for an average of almost 9 years. All patients were already on metformin treatment that had proved inadequate for controlling their hyperglycemia; enrolled patients had an average A1c of 8.28%. The trial’s primary endpoint was change from baseline in A1c levels after 40 weeks.
 

Significant differences at each dose level

Patients on each of the three tirzepatide doses – 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg once weekly – showed dose-dependent reductions in A1c that, for each dose, were significantly better than the reduction achieved with semaglutide. The highest tirzepatide dose reduced A1c levels by an average of 0.45% more than what semaglutide achieved, reported first author Juan P. Frias, MD; Dr. Landó; and their coauthors.

One key secondary endpoint was weight reduction, and each of the three tirzepatide doses again produced significant incremental loss beyond what semaglutide produced. The 5-mg weekly dose of tirzepatide produced an average 1.9-kg additional weight loss, compared with semaglutide, while the 15-mg dose resulted in an average 5.5-kg loss beyond what semaglutide achieved and a total average weight loss of 11.2 kg from baseline.

The study’s additional key secondary endpoints, the percentages of patients reaching an A1c of less than 7%, and less than 5.7%, also showed significantly better numbers with tirzepatide. The highest tirzepatide dose pushed 86% of patients below the 7% mark, compared with 79% on semaglutide, and the top tirzepatide dose resulted in 46% of patients getting their A1c below 5.7%, compared with 19% of patients on semaglutide.

The findings are “stunning, I must stay, and those results included that up to half of the patients treated with high doses of tirzepatide may reach A1c levels of less than 5.7%, which is really, really unheard of,” said Dr. Holst, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Copenhagen. Along with the “weight losses at the same time of up to 12% in that patient group, we are seeing some completely unexpected and really shocking and wonderful new advances in the therapy,” added Dr. Holst.

The safety profile of tirzepatide was roughly similar to semaglutide’s and to that other agents in the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) class. Concurrently with the report at the meeting, the results also appeared in an article published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

An ‘impressive’ weight loss effect

Weight loss on tirzepatide was “impressive,” commented Katherine R. Tuttle, MD, a nephrologist affiliated with the University of Washington and executive director for research at Providence Health Care in Spokane, Wash. Another striking feature of tirzepatide’s weight-loss effect was that it did not plateau during the 40 weeks of the study, Dr. Tuttle noted in an accompanying editorial that accompanied the published report, a finding that suggests the potential for additional weight loss from continued treatment .

“The weight loss is remarkable,” commented Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, an endocrinologist at Emory University, Atlanta. While incremental reduction of A1c on the order of less than 0.5% is helpful, incremental weight loss of more than 10 lbs on tirzepatide, compared with semaglutide “will likely be a tie-breaker” for many clinicians and patients to favor tirzepatide over semaglutide or another GLP-1 RA agent, he said in an interview. Dr. Galindo also cited other important factors that he predicted will drive decisions on using tirzepatide or a GLP-1 RA once tirzepatide reaches the U.S. market: relative cost, access, and tolerability.
 

The important issue of dose

But the edge that tirzepatide showed over semaglutide for weight loss did not occur on a completely level playing field. The 1 mg/week dose of semaglutide used as the comparator in SURPASS-2 was the maximum dose available at the time the study began, but in June 2021 the Food and Drug Administration approved a 2.4 mg/week dose (Wegovy) labeled specifically for weight loss. Dr. Tuttle cited the limitation this introduces in her editorial.

“The dose issue is important,” she wrote. The doses of tirzepatide and semaglutide compared in SURPASS-2 “were not comparable in terms of weight outcomes” given that prior evidence showed that the 2.4 mg/week semaglutide dose is more appropriate for weight loss.

Dr. Tuttle also cited other factors to consider when assessing tirzepatide compared with agents in the GLP-1 RA class.

Several GLP-1 RA agents, including semaglutide, have proven efficacy for reducing rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and albuminuria, and they also slow decline in kidney function and progression of diabetic kidney disease. No details on the renal effects of tirzepatide appeared in the SURPASS-2 report. A press release from Lilly in May 2021 briefly mentioned results from a meta-analysis of several clinical studies of tirzepatide that showed a nonsignificant effect from tirzepatide on the incidence of major cardiovascular adverse events (death from cardiovascular or undetermined causes, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina) relative to comparator groups. Results from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial in high-risk patients treated with tirzepatide, SURPASS-CVOT, are not expected until 2024.

A further limitation of SURPASS-2 was the demographics of the enrolled population, which had a low (0.4%) enrollment rate of Black patients, and a high proportion (70%) of Hispanic patients, Dr. Tuttle observed.
 

Low rates of hypoglycemia

Another notable finding from SURPASS-2 was the low incidence of clinically significant hypoglycemic events (blood glucose levels less than 54 mg/dL), which occurred in 0.2%-1.7% of patients on tirzepatide, depending on their dose, and in 0.4% of patients on semaglutide. Two patients in the tirzepatide cohort had severe hypoglycemia.

These numbers are reassuring, said Dr. Galindo, and reflect the safety of tirzepatide’s dual, incretin-like mechanisms of action that make it a “twincretin.” The molecule acts as both a GLP-1 RA, and as glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, an incretin that stimulates insulin release when blood sugar is high but also increases glucagon levels when blood sugar levels are normal or low. This dual action may help explain the apparent increased potency tirzepatide showed for both A1c reduction and weight loss, compared with semaglutide, which acts only as a GLP-1 RA.

Some experts have cited the uncertainty introduced by the open-label design of SURPASS-2, a decision necessitated by the distinctly different delivery devices used for tirzepatide and semaglutide, explained Dr. Landó. But she highlighted that double blinding applied to the three different tirzepatide dosages tested in the trial. Dr. Landó said that Lilly plans to seek FDA approval for all three tested tirzepatide doses to give clinicians and patients flexibility in applying the treatment.

SURPASS-2 used a prolonged dose-escalation protocol designed to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects that started patients on a 2.5 mg weekly dose that then increased by 2.5 mg increments every 4 weeks until patients reached their assigned target dose. This meant that patients did not begin receiving the 15-mg/week dose until halfway through the trial.
 

Several more tirzepatide trials

Reports from two other pivotal trials for tirzepatide also appeared as posters at the meeting. SURPASS-5 compared tirzepatide with placebo in 475 patients inadequately controlled with titrated insulin glargine (Lantus). SURPASS-3 randomized 1,444 patients to tirzepatide or titrated insulin degludec (Tresiba). In both studies treatment with tirzepatide led to significantly better reductions in A1c and in weight loss than the comparator treatments. Results from a third pivotal trial, SURPASS-1 which compared tirzepatide against placebo in 478 treatment-naive patients, will come in a report scheduled for the second day of the meeting.

The results from all the recent tirzepatide trials show a consistent benefit across the continuum of patients with type 2 diabetes regardless of whether it’s recent onset or well-established disease, said Dr. Landó.

The SURPASS studies were sponsored by Lilly, the company developing tirzepatide, and the reports include several authors who are Lilly employees. Dr. Landó is a Lilly employee and stockholder. Dr. Tuttle has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide, as well as to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, and Janssen. She has also received travel expenses from Kyokawa Hakko Kirin, and research funding from Bayer, Goldfinch Bio, and Lilly. Dr. Galindo has been a consultant to Lilly and to Novo Nordisk, as well as to Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Valeritas, and Weight Watchers, and his institution has received grant support on his behalf from Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Dexcom. Dr. Holst had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – that is, reducing the number of hours a person is allowed to eat during the day – may produce a modest 1%-4% weight loss, even without cutting calories, early studies in humans suggest. But more research is needed to provide definitive evidence.

This type of intermittent fasting also appears to improve blood glucose, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, said Courtney M. Peterson, PhD, a researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, summarizing what is known about the potential weight-loss strategy at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The best results were seen with early time-restricted eating (that is, ending the nighttime fasting early in the day) and allowing a person to eat 8-10 hours each day (for example, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), with fasting and only water allowed the remaining hours, she reported.

However, the 3 dozen or so studies in humans to date are mainly small, pilot, or single-arm studies lasting up to 3 months, and there are only three main randomized, controlled trials with 25 or more participants in each group.

Large trials with around 260 participants are needed, Dr. Peterson said, “before drawing definitive conclusions” about the weight-loss and cardiometabolic benefits of time-restricted eating.

Invited to comment, session chair Lisa S. Chow, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the endocrine and diabetes division at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, similarly said: “I think time-restricted eating is promising because of its simple message and noted weight-loss benefit, yet more data are needed.”

“Many uncertainties remain,” she added, “including the potential concern that time-restricted eating may be associated with lean [muscle] mass loss and identifying the populations most likely to benefit from time-restricted eating,” she said.
 

36 small studies, a review, a meta-analysis, 3 RCTs

There have been about three dozen small studies of time-restricted eating in humans, which examined 4- to 11-hour eating windows, Dr. Peterson explained.

A systematic review of 23 trials of time-restricted eating reported that, on average, participants lost 3% of their initial weight. And a meta-analysis of 19 trials in 475 participants found a –0.9 kg mean difference effect for weight loss.

However, those two analyses did not compare time-restricted eating with a control treatment, she stressed.

The largest randomized, controlled trial is a 12-week study in 271 adults with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China, Dr. Peterson said.

The researchers compared three groups:

• Alternate-day modified fasting: healthy meal provided.
• Time-restricted eating: 8-hour window, healthy meal provided.
• Control: 20% calorie reduction, no meal provided.

At 4 and 12 weeks, adults in the two treatment groups lost more weight than those in the control group, but “this was not a fair comparison” because of the lack of a provided meal in the control group, Dr. Peterson pointed out.

The next largest randomized, controlled study is the 12-week TREAT trial, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2020.

The researchers, from the University of California, San Francisco, randomized 116 adults into two groups:

• 8-hour time-restricted eating from noon to 8 p.m..
• Control: three meals/day.

Time-restricted eating did not lead to greater weight loss, compared with three structured meals a day, which was not surprising, Dr. Chow said, as “participants just reported whether they were engaged in time-restricted eating in a yes/no answer.”

Moreover, “there was no objective measure of their eating window. From our study, we showed that the extent of eating window restriction matters, not just time-restricted eating participation.”

Also, in TREAT, the eating window was noon to 8 p.m. (considered late for time-restricted eating), and the trial also allowed noncaloric beverages outside the window, whereas most studies only allow water and medications. 

Lastly, TREAT showed that time-restricted eating reduced weight, compared with baseline, but the weight loss was not significant, compared with the control group, and there was a wide spread of effects (that is, some lost a lot of weight, others didn’t lose much weight).

“That being said, the JAMA Internal Medicine paper is the largest paper to date of time-restricted eating randomized versus control, so its findings need to be acknowledged and recognized,” Dr. Chow said.

Peterson reported that her group recently completed a 14-week intervention in 90 adults with obesity divided into two groups:

• Control: Continuous energy restriction, self-selected ≥ 12-hour window.
• Early time-restricted eating: 8-hour window from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.

The findings will provide further insight into the benefits of time-restricted eating.
 

How might time-restricted eating lead to weight loss?

Dr. Peterson concluded by presenting data suggesting how time-restricted eating may induce weight loss.

In a 4-day crossover study in 11 overweight adults, time-restricted eating did not affect energy expenditure, but it lessened swings in subjective hunger, improved appetite hormones including ghrelin, and increased fat oxidation.

Most trials have reported that time-restricted eating improves one or more cardiometabolic endpoints, she noted.

Early time-restricted eating was associated with improved insulin sensitivity and secretion, blood pressure, and oxidative stress, but not better lipid levels.

In contrast, compared with eating 3 meals/day (control), late time-restricted eating (eating 1 meal/day from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.) was associated with worsened cardiometabolic health (glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and lipid levels) in an 8-week crossover study in 15 participants.

Dr. Peterson and Dr. Chow reported no relevant financial relationships.

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