User login
Therapy app cut A1c, drug intensification in T2D
An investigational smartphone app that delivers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes led to a significant 10 percentage point cut in the incidence of antihyperglycemic-drug intensification during 6 months’ follow-up, when compared with a control phone app, in the CBT app’s pivotal trial with 669 randomized patients.
Previously reported results from this trial, called BT-001, showed that people randomized to use the CBT app had a significant average 0.4 percentage point reduction in hemoglobin A1c, compared with controls, after 90 days for the trial’s primary endpoint, and a significant 0.29 percentage point reduction in A1c, compared with controls, after 180 days.
The new finding, that these incremental drops in A1c occurred while the control patients also received significantly more intensification of their antihyperglycemic medication, provides further evidence for the efficacy of the CBT app, said Marc P. Bonaca, MD, in a press conference organized by the American College of Cardiology in advance of its upcoming joint scientific sessions.
The CBT app “significantly reduced A1c despite less intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy,” noted Dr. Bonaca, a vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Based on positive safety and efficacy findings from the primary-endpoint phase of the BT-001 trial, reported in Diabetes Care, the company developing the CBT app, Better Therapeutics, said in a statement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted the company’s application for de novo classification and marketing approval of the app, also called BT-001. If the agency grants this classification and marketing approval, the company plans to sell the app on a prescription basis for use by people with type 2 diabetes.
CBT app gives patients problem-solving skills
CBT gives people with type 2 diabetes a way to better understand their unhelpful behaviors and motivations and teaches them problem-solving skills. Providing this counseling via an app addresses the challenge of making the intervention scalable to a broad range of patients, Dr. Bonaca explained.
“Clinicians are frustrated by trying to produce behavioral change” in patients. The BT-001 app “provides a new avenue to treatment,” an approach that clinicians have been “very receptive” to using “once they understand the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “The effect at 90 days was very similar to what a drug would do. It’s not just drugs any more” for treating people with type 2 diabetes, he declared.
“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” commented Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira noted in an interview.
“Once a physician explains this [CBT] app and patients understand how to use it, then patients will be happy to use it,” commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, who moderated the press conference. “We may see an explosion of apps like this one, designed to help better control” other chronic disorders, such as elevated blood pressure or abnormal lipid levels, Dr. Grapsa predicted. “I’m very optimistic that these apps have a great future in health care.”
Forty percent relative cut in new antihyperglycemic drug use
The BT-001 study randomized 669 adults with smartphone access and type 2 diabetes at any of six U.S. sites. The enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years, and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using prandial insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antihyperglycemic medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea.
The new results reported by Dr. Bonaca showed that, during follow-up, people using the app had a 14.4% rate of antihyperglycemic drug intensification compared with a 24.4% rate among the controls, a roughly 40% relative decrease in new antihyperglycemic medication use. In addition, among those using insulin at baseline, 3.8% of controls increased their insulin dose, compared with 1.5% of those using the CBT app, while insulin doses decreased in 0.9% of the control subjects and in 2.2% of those using the BT-001 app.
Further study findings, first reported by Dr. Bonaca at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in late 2022, also showed a clear dose-response pattern for the CBT app: the more CBT lessons a person completed, the greater their reduction in A1c over 180 days of app use. People who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use), average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times (also about one-third of the intervention group), the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.
“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.
This “clear” dose-response relationship “was one of the most exciting findings. It helps validate the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “We’re now modeling which patients were the most engaged” with using the app, and “looking at ways to increase app engagement.”
Better Therapeutics also announced, in December 2022, results from a separate, uncontrolled study of a similar CBT app in 19 people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The findings showed that use of the tested app linked with an average 16% drop from baseline in liver fat content as measured by MRI, as well as other improvements in markers of hepatic function. The company said in a statement that based on these findings it planned to apply for breakthrough-device designation with the FDA for use of a liver-specific CBT app in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira and Dr. Grapsa had no disclosures.
An investigational smartphone app that delivers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes led to a significant 10 percentage point cut in the incidence of antihyperglycemic-drug intensification during 6 months’ follow-up, when compared with a control phone app, in the CBT app’s pivotal trial with 669 randomized patients.
Previously reported results from this trial, called BT-001, showed that people randomized to use the CBT app had a significant average 0.4 percentage point reduction in hemoglobin A1c, compared with controls, after 90 days for the trial’s primary endpoint, and a significant 0.29 percentage point reduction in A1c, compared with controls, after 180 days.
The new finding, that these incremental drops in A1c occurred while the control patients also received significantly more intensification of their antihyperglycemic medication, provides further evidence for the efficacy of the CBT app, said Marc P. Bonaca, MD, in a press conference organized by the American College of Cardiology in advance of its upcoming joint scientific sessions.
The CBT app “significantly reduced A1c despite less intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy,” noted Dr. Bonaca, a vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Based on positive safety and efficacy findings from the primary-endpoint phase of the BT-001 trial, reported in Diabetes Care, the company developing the CBT app, Better Therapeutics, said in a statement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted the company’s application for de novo classification and marketing approval of the app, also called BT-001. If the agency grants this classification and marketing approval, the company plans to sell the app on a prescription basis for use by people with type 2 diabetes.
CBT app gives patients problem-solving skills
CBT gives people with type 2 diabetes a way to better understand their unhelpful behaviors and motivations and teaches them problem-solving skills. Providing this counseling via an app addresses the challenge of making the intervention scalable to a broad range of patients, Dr. Bonaca explained.
“Clinicians are frustrated by trying to produce behavioral change” in patients. The BT-001 app “provides a new avenue to treatment,” an approach that clinicians have been “very receptive” to using “once they understand the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “The effect at 90 days was very similar to what a drug would do. It’s not just drugs any more” for treating people with type 2 diabetes, he declared.
“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” commented Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira noted in an interview.
“Once a physician explains this [CBT] app and patients understand how to use it, then patients will be happy to use it,” commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, who moderated the press conference. “We may see an explosion of apps like this one, designed to help better control” other chronic disorders, such as elevated blood pressure or abnormal lipid levels, Dr. Grapsa predicted. “I’m very optimistic that these apps have a great future in health care.”
Forty percent relative cut in new antihyperglycemic drug use
The BT-001 study randomized 669 adults with smartphone access and type 2 diabetes at any of six U.S. sites. The enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years, and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using prandial insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antihyperglycemic medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea.
The new results reported by Dr. Bonaca showed that, during follow-up, people using the app had a 14.4% rate of antihyperglycemic drug intensification compared with a 24.4% rate among the controls, a roughly 40% relative decrease in new antihyperglycemic medication use. In addition, among those using insulin at baseline, 3.8% of controls increased their insulin dose, compared with 1.5% of those using the CBT app, while insulin doses decreased in 0.9% of the control subjects and in 2.2% of those using the BT-001 app.
Further study findings, first reported by Dr. Bonaca at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in late 2022, also showed a clear dose-response pattern for the CBT app: the more CBT lessons a person completed, the greater their reduction in A1c over 180 days of app use. People who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use), average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times (also about one-third of the intervention group), the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.
“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.
This “clear” dose-response relationship “was one of the most exciting findings. It helps validate the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “We’re now modeling which patients were the most engaged” with using the app, and “looking at ways to increase app engagement.”
Better Therapeutics also announced, in December 2022, results from a separate, uncontrolled study of a similar CBT app in 19 people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The findings showed that use of the tested app linked with an average 16% drop from baseline in liver fat content as measured by MRI, as well as other improvements in markers of hepatic function. The company said in a statement that based on these findings it planned to apply for breakthrough-device designation with the FDA for use of a liver-specific CBT app in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira and Dr. Grapsa had no disclosures.
An investigational smartphone app that delivers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to people with type 2 diabetes led to a significant 10 percentage point cut in the incidence of antihyperglycemic-drug intensification during 6 months’ follow-up, when compared with a control phone app, in the CBT app’s pivotal trial with 669 randomized patients.
Previously reported results from this trial, called BT-001, showed that people randomized to use the CBT app had a significant average 0.4 percentage point reduction in hemoglobin A1c, compared with controls, after 90 days for the trial’s primary endpoint, and a significant 0.29 percentage point reduction in A1c, compared with controls, after 180 days.
The new finding, that these incremental drops in A1c occurred while the control patients also received significantly more intensification of their antihyperglycemic medication, provides further evidence for the efficacy of the CBT app, said Marc P. Bonaca, MD, in a press conference organized by the American College of Cardiology in advance of its upcoming joint scientific sessions.
The CBT app “significantly reduced A1c despite less intensification of antihyperglycemic therapy,” noted Dr. Bonaca, a vascular medicine specialist and executive director of CPC Clinical Research, an academic research organization created by and affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Based on positive safety and efficacy findings from the primary-endpoint phase of the BT-001 trial, reported in Diabetes Care, the company developing the CBT app, Better Therapeutics, said in a statement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted the company’s application for de novo classification and marketing approval of the app, also called BT-001. If the agency grants this classification and marketing approval, the company plans to sell the app on a prescription basis for use by people with type 2 diabetes.
CBT app gives patients problem-solving skills
CBT gives people with type 2 diabetes a way to better understand their unhelpful behaviors and motivations and teaches them problem-solving skills. Providing this counseling via an app addresses the challenge of making the intervention scalable to a broad range of patients, Dr. Bonaca explained.
“Clinicians are frustrated by trying to produce behavioral change” in patients. The BT-001 app “provides a new avenue to treatment,” an approach that clinicians have been “very receptive” to using “once they understand the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “The effect at 90 days was very similar to what a drug would do. It’s not just drugs any more” for treating people with type 2 diabetes, he declared.
“CBT is an empirically supported psychotherapy for a variety of emotional disorders, and it has been adapted to target specific emotional distress in the context of chronic illness,” commented Amit Shapira, PhD, a clinical psychologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston who has not been involved in the BT-001 studies. A CBT protocol designed for diabetes, CBT for Adherence and Depression “has been shown to have a positive impact on depression symptoms and glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Shapira noted in an interview.
“Once a physician explains this [CBT] app and patients understand how to use it, then patients will be happy to use it,” commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, who moderated the press conference. “We may see an explosion of apps like this one, designed to help better control” other chronic disorders, such as elevated blood pressure or abnormal lipid levels, Dr. Grapsa predicted. “I’m very optimistic that these apps have a great future in health care.”
Forty percent relative cut in new antihyperglycemic drug use
The BT-001 study randomized 669 adults with smartphone access and type 2 diabetes at any of six U.S. sites. The enrolled patients had type 2 diabetes for an average of 11 years, and an A1c of 7%-10.9% with an average level of 8.2%. Participants had to be on a stable medication regimen for at least 3 months but not using prandial insulin, and their treatment regimens could undergo adjustment during the trial. At baseline, each subject was on an average of 2.1 antihyperglycemic medications, including 90% on metformin and 42% on a sulfonylurea.
The new results reported by Dr. Bonaca showed that, during follow-up, people using the app had a 14.4% rate of antihyperglycemic drug intensification compared with a 24.4% rate among the controls, a roughly 40% relative decrease in new antihyperglycemic medication use. In addition, among those using insulin at baseline, 3.8% of controls increased their insulin dose, compared with 1.5% of those using the CBT app, while insulin doses decreased in 0.9% of the control subjects and in 2.2% of those using the BT-001 app.
Further study findings, first reported by Dr. Bonaca at the American Heart Association scientific sessions in late 2022, also showed a clear dose-response pattern for the CBT app: the more CBT lessons a person completed, the greater their reduction in A1c over 180 days of app use. People who used the app fewer than 10 times had an average reduction from baseline in their A1c of less than 0.1 percentage points. Among those who used the app 10-20 times (a subgroup with roughly one-third of the people randomized to app use), average A1c reduction increased to about 0.4 percentage points, and among those who used the app more than 20 times (also about one-third of the intervention group), the average A1c reduction from baseline was about 0.6 percentage points.
“It would be interesting to learn more about the adults who engaged with the app” and had a higher use rate “to provide more targeted care” with the app to people who match the profiles of those who were more likely to use the app during the trial, said Dr. Shapira.
This “clear” dose-response relationship “was one of the most exciting findings. It helps validate the mechanism,” Dr. Bonaca said during the press conference. “We’re now modeling which patients were the most engaged” with using the app, and “looking at ways to increase app engagement.”
Better Therapeutics also announced, in December 2022, results from a separate, uncontrolled study of a similar CBT app in 19 people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The findings showed that use of the tested app linked with an average 16% drop from baseline in liver fat content as measured by MRI, as well as other improvements in markers of hepatic function. The company said in a statement that based on these findings it planned to apply for breakthrough-device designation with the FDA for use of a liver-specific CBT app in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.
The BT-001 trial was sponsored by Better Therapeutics, the company developing the app. CPC Clinical Research receives research and consulting funding from numerous companies. Dr. Bonaca has been a consultant to Audentes, and is a stockholder of Medtronic and Pfizer. Dr. Shapira and Dr. Grapsa had no disclosures.
FROM ACC 2023
How to get started with prescribing and advising on CGM
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.
While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.
“We in primary care are being shepherded into this space by our patients who have seen an advertisement or talked to a friend about the benefits of CGM, and then asked us to prescribe it,” said Dr. Skolnik, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Systemic factors are also accelerating CGM uptake, he added, highlighting recent Medicare rule changes to expand eligibility, with insurance companies beginning to follow suit.
Warren A. Jones, MD, FAAFP, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and past president of the AAFP, said that insulin price regulations have also opened doors to CGM.
“When you had patients trying to determine whether they were going to buy food or pay for high-priced insulin, that was a big challenge,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. “But that barrier has recently been removed, so we’re at the dawn of a new era.”
Like any paradigm shift, however,
Overview of online resources and navigating coverage
The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.
The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.
“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”
To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.
Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.
Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.
Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.
When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.
Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.
“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”
Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
Learning CGM through first-hand experience
Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.
“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”
Instead of “reading everything under the sun” about CGM, he recommends starting with several of the ADA’s resources focusing on time in range, including an article, webinar, and podcast.
After that, physicians can learn on the job. A beginner’s mindset to CGM is well received by patients, he said, especially if you share your natural curiosity with them.
“Share your patients’ wonder at what they see,” Dr. Skolnik said. “They’ll open the app and you’ll look at their time and range and together you’ll go, ‘Wow, isn’t that something? I wonder why?’ ”
With this approach, providers and patients can join forces to explore trends and troubleshoot anomalous readings.
“Together you’ll go: ‘Hmm, I wonder why on Thursday, that graph is looking so far off from the other days? Wow. And then the patient remembers: they ate out on Thursday. They had a big pasta meal, perhaps. Everyone’s different in how they respond to different carbs. And you’ll both have this epiphany together about: ‘Wow, what I do matters.’ And I think that’s actually the best way to jump in.”
According to the AAFP, ADCES, and APhA resources, providers should first address time below range, as hypoglycemia can be imminently dangerous.
Next, providers should consider time in range, average glucose, and glucose management indicator, the latter of which acts as a surrogate for HbA1c. The first couple weeks of monitoring should be viewed as an information gathering phase, after which specific targets can be addressed through behavioral modifications and insulin adjustments, the AAFP advises.
The ADA guide highlights CGM usage, glucose variability, time in range, time above range, and average glucose as key metrics to monitor and offers corresponding actions when targets are unmet.
Encouraging patients to start CGM
Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.
“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.
Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.
“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”
Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.
While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.
“We in primary care are being shepherded into this space by our patients who have seen an advertisement or talked to a friend about the benefits of CGM, and then asked us to prescribe it,” said Dr. Skolnik, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Systemic factors are also accelerating CGM uptake, he added, highlighting recent Medicare rule changes to expand eligibility, with insurance companies beginning to follow suit.
Warren A. Jones, MD, FAAFP, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and past president of the AAFP, said that insulin price regulations have also opened doors to CGM.
“When you had patients trying to determine whether they were going to buy food or pay for high-priced insulin, that was a big challenge,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. “But that barrier has recently been removed, so we’re at the dawn of a new era.”
Like any paradigm shift, however,
Overview of online resources and navigating coverage
The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.
The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.
“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”
To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.
Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.
Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.
Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.
When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.
Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.
“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”
Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
Learning CGM through first-hand experience
Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.
“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”
Instead of “reading everything under the sun” about CGM, he recommends starting with several of the ADA’s resources focusing on time in range, including an article, webinar, and podcast.
After that, physicians can learn on the job. A beginner’s mindset to CGM is well received by patients, he said, especially if you share your natural curiosity with them.
“Share your patients’ wonder at what they see,” Dr. Skolnik said. “They’ll open the app and you’ll look at their time and range and together you’ll go, ‘Wow, isn’t that something? I wonder why?’ ”
With this approach, providers and patients can join forces to explore trends and troubleshoot anomalous readings.
“Together you’ll go: ‘Hmm, I wonder why on Thursday, that graph is looking so far off from the other days? Wow. And then the patient remembers: they ate out on Thursday. They had a big pasta meal, perhaps. Everyone’s different in how they respond to different carbs. And you’ll both have this epiphany together about: ‘Wow, what I do matters.’ And I think that’s actually the best way to jump in.”
According to the AAFP, ADCES, and APhA resources, providers should first address time below range, as hypoglycemia can be imminently dangerous.
Next, providers should consider time in range, average glucose, and glucose management indicator, the latter of which acts as a surrogate for HbA1c. The first couple weeks of monitoring should be viewed as an information gathering phase, after which specific targets can be addressed through behavioral modifications and insulin adjustments, the AAFP advises.
The ADA guide highlights CGM usage, glucose variability, time in range, time above range, and average glucose as key metrics to monitor and offers corresponding actions when targets are unmet.
Encouraging patients to start CGM
Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.
“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.
Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.
“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”
Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.
While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.
“We in primary care are being shepherded into this space by our patients who have seen an advertisement or talked to a friend about the benefits of CGM, and then asked us to prescribe it,” said Dr. Skolnik, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Systemic factors are also accelerating CGM uptake, he added, highlighting recent Medicare rule changes to expand eligibility, with insurance companies beginning to follow suit.
Warren A. Jones, MD, FAAFP, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and past president of the AAFP, said that insulin price regulations have also opened doors to CGM.
“When you had patients trying to determine whether they were going to buy food or pay for high-priced insulin, that was a big challenge,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. “But that barrier has recently been removed, so we’re at the dawn of a new era.”
Like any paradigm shift, however,
Overview of online resources and navigating coverage
The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.
The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.
“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”
To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.
Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.
Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.
Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.
When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.
Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.
“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”
Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
Learning CGM through first-hand experience
Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.
“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”
Instead of “reading everything under the sun” about CGM, he recommends starting with several of the ADA’s resources focusing on time in range, including an article, webinar, and podcast.
After that, physicians can learn on the job. A beginner’s mindset to CGM is well received by patients, he said, especially if you share your natural curiosity with them.
“Share your patients’ wonder at what they see,” Dr. Skolnik said. “They’ll open the app and you’ll look at their time and range and together you’ll go, ‘Wow, isn’t that something? I wonder why?’ ”
With this approach, providers and patients can join forces to explore trends and troubleshoot anomalous readings.
“Together you’ll go: ‘Hmm, I wonder why on Thursday, that graph is looking so far off from the other days? Wow. And then the patient remembers: they ate out on Thursday. They had a big pasta meal, perhaps. Everyone’s different in how they respond to different carbs. And you’ll both have this epiphany together about: ‘Wow, what I do matters.’ And I think that’s actually the best way to jump in.”
According to the AAFP, ADCES, and APhA resources, providers should first address time below range, as hypoglycemia can be imminently dangerous.
Next, providers should consider time in range, average glucose, and glucose management indicator, the latter of which acts as a surrogate for HbA1c. The first couple weeks of monitoring should be viewed as an information gathering phase, after which specific targets can be addressed through behavioral modifications and insulin adjustments, the AAFP advises.
The ADA guide highlights CGM usage, glucose variability, time in range, time above range, and average glucose as key metrics to monitor and offers corresponding actions when targets are unmet.
Encouraging patients to start CGM
Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.
“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.
Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.
“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”
Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Diabetes drug tied to lower dementia risk
new research suggests.
Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.
However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.
“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.
This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.
The results were published online in Neurology.
Dose-response relationship
Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.
This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.
Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.
Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.
Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.
There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).
A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
Several limitations
The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).
The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.
The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).
“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.
However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.
The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.
There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
More data needed
In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”
However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.
They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.
They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.
“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.
For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.
However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.
“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.
This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.
The results were published online in Neurology.
Dose-response relationship
Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.
This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.
Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.
Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.
Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.
There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).
A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
Several limitations
The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).
The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.
The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).
“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.
However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.
The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.
There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
More data needed
In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”
However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.
They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.
They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.
“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.
For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.
However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.
“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.
This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.
The results were published online in Neurology.
Dose-response relationship
Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.
This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.
Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.
Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.
Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.
There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).
A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
Several limitations
The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).
The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.
The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).
“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.
However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.
The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.
There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
More data needed
In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”
However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.
They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.
They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.
“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.
For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
COVID-19 shot appears to reduce diabetes risk, even after Omicron
new data suggest.
The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.
Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.
However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.
“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.
“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.
Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.
Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.
The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).
Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).
The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).
However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.
There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.
Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”
He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”
This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new data suggest.
The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.
Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.
However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.
“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.
“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.
Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.
Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.
The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).
Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).
The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).
However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.
There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.
Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”
He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”
This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new data suggest.
The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.
Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.
However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.
“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.
“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.
Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.
Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.
The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).
Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).
The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).
However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.
There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.
Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”
He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”
This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
A Review of the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes (GRADE) Study: Comparing the Effectiveness of Type 2 Diabetes Medications
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic, progressive disease marked by ongoing decline in insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function over time. Clinical trials have shown that lowering A1C to ∼7.0% (53 mmol/mol), especially after an early diagnosis, can markedly reduce the long-term complications of T2D. Metformin has become the generally recommended first therapeutic agent in treating T2D due to the drug’s long-term experience, effectiveness, and avoidance of hypoglycemia or weight gain. However, it is clear that additional agents are necessary to regain glucose control when metformin eventually fails due to the progressive nature of the disease.
Insufficient data on comparative efficacy and durability of effect has led to uncertainty in recommendations for the preferred second agent. Comparative effectiveness has been reported primarily in industry-sponsored trials of relatively short duration. With this in mind, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) sponsored the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) Study. This landmark, randomized controlled study was initiated in 2013, enrolling patients on metformin alone within 10 years of diagnosis of T2D. It involved 36 research sites in the United States with a mean follow-up of 5 years. The participants were randomized to adding a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (sitagliptin), a sulfonylurea (glimepiride), basal insulin (glargine), or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) (liraglutide), with the primary outcome being time to A1C over 7.0%.
The GRADE study was unique in several ways: its size, scope, length, and the fact that the financial support and design planning stemmed from a U34 planning grant from the NIDDK. The study population of 5047 participants was very diverse, reflecting the population affected by T2D. A mix of racial and ethnic groups were represented, including 19.8% Black participants and 18.6% Hispanic participants. It is unlikely that a similar comparative effectiveness trial of pharmacologic treatment of T2D will be performed again in the future, considering the high costs and length of time required for such a study amid the dynamic drug development environment today. In fact, the final implementation of study results is somewhat complicated by the subsequent approval of GLP-1 RAs of greater efficacy, weight loss, and convenience, as well as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and, most recently, a dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist (tirzepatide). Many of these newer agents have demonstrated nonglycemic benefits, such as reduced risk of cardiovascular (CV) events or reduced progression of renal disease. The findings from the GRADE study, however, did provide important insight on the long-term management of T2D.
The GRADE study was the first to compare the efficacy of 4 US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for T2D in maintaining blood glucose levels for the longest amount of time in patients with T2D. It also monitored microvascular complications, CV events, and adverse drug effects.
An important message of the study that may be overlooked is that all of the studied agents’ ability to maintain an A1C under 7.0% was quite low—as 71% of all participants reached the primary outcome by 5 years; the best results for a group were 67% for glargine and 68% for liraglutide. In general, the results showed that liraglutide and insulin glargine were superior to glimepiride and sitagliptin in controlling blood sugars. They provided approximately 6 months’ more time with blood glucose levels in the desired range compared with sitagliptin, which was shown to provide the least amount of time in maintaining glucose levels. Fifty-five percent of the sitagliptin group experienced the primary outcome at 1 year. Sitagliptin was particularly ineffective for the patient subgroup with an A1C at baseline of 7.8% or higher, where 70% reached the primary outcome in 1 year. The results were uniform regarding age, race, sex, and ethnicity of the trial participants. The intention-to-treat design of the study limits the conclusions about A1C differences, as failure to maintain an A1C under 7.5% required addition of prandial insulin for the glargine group and the addition of glargine to the other 3 groups. Although subjects receiving glargine had an initial glucose-lowering effect that was less than that seen with liraglutide, the ability to keep titrating the glargine likely had an impact on the long-term benefit of that agent. When the glargine group neared or in some cases even passed the secondary outcome A1C level of 7.5%, the basal insulin was increased to lower the A1C, sometimes even when the protocol would recommend adding prandial insulin.
The study was not powered specifically for determining the relative risk of CV events. However, there was some evidence that liraglutide was associated with lower CV risk than the other 3 agents by about 30%. There was no difference in microvascular risk among the agents in this study of relatively short-term disease. Side effects were not a major problem and no different than expected. Glargine and glimepiride were associated with less weight loss, while liraglutide had a particular benefit on weight. Glimepiride is associated with significantly more frequent incidents of severe hypoglycemia, though the rates of severe hypoglycemia were quite low. Liraglutide users reported significantly higher rates of nausea and had a higher early drop-out rate, but did not show a difference in continued use by the end of the study.
In summary, the GRADE trial confirmed that glucose control in T2D is a progressive problem, as the addition of all 4 classes of medication failed to keep most patients in the target glucose range. However, basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs outperformed the other 2 classes. Sitagliptin has the poorest metabolic profile. One could argue that, based on overall metabolic control and concomitant weight benefits, less need for glucose monitoring, simple titration, apparent CV benefit, and insignificant hypoglycemia, GLP-1 RAs offer the best option as an agent to add to metformin. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the agent used to represent this class in the study appears to be less effective in reducing glucose and weight and offers less convenience than the newer, once-weekly GLP-RAs available today.
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic, progressive disease marked by ongoing decline in insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function over time. Clinical trials have shown that lowering A1C to ∼7.0% (53 mmol/mol), especially after an early diagnosis, can markedly reduce the long-term complications of T2D. Metformin has become the generally recommended first therapeutic agent in treating T2D due to the drug’s long-term experience, effectiveness, and avoidance of hypoglycemia or weight gain. However, it is clear that additional agents are necessary to regain glucose control when metformin eventually fails due to the progressive nature of the disease.
Insufficient data on comparative efficacy and durability of effect has led to uncertainty in recommendations for the preferred second agent. Comparative effectiveness has been reported primarily in industry-sponsored trials of relatively short duration. With this in mind, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) sponsored the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) Study. This landmark, randomized controlled study was initiated in 2013, enrolling patients on metformin alone within 10 years of diagnosis of T2D. It involved 36 research sites in the United States with a mean follow-up of 5 years. The participants were randomized to adding a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (sitagliptin), a sulfonylurea (glimepiride), basal insulin (glargine), or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) (liraglutide), with the primary outcome being time to A1C over 7.0%.
The GRADE study was unique in several ways: its size, scope, length, and the fact that the financial support and design planning stemmed from a U34 planning grant from the NIDDK. The study population of 5047 participants was very diverse, reflecting the population affected by T2D. A mix of racial and ethnic groups were represented, including 19.8% Black participants and 18.6% Hispanic participants. It is unlikely that a similar comparative effectiveness trial of pharmacologic treatment of T2D will be performed again in the future, considering the high costs and length of time required for such a study amid the dynamic drug development environment today. In fact, the final implementation of study results is somewhat complicated by the subsequent approval of GLP-1 RAs of greater efficacy, weight loss, and convenience, as well as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and, most recently, a dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist (tirzepatide). Many of these newer agents have demonstrated nonglycemic benefits, such as reduced risk of cardiovascular (CV) events or reduced progression of renal disease. The findings from the GRADE study, however, did provide important insight on the long-term management of T2D.
The GRADE study was the first to compare the efficacy of 4 US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for T2D in maintaining blood glucose levels for the longest amount of time in patients with T2D. It also monitored microvascular complications, CV events, and adverse drug effects.
An important message of the study that may be overlooked is that all of the studied agents’ ability to maintain an A1C under 7.0% was quite low—as 71% of all participants reached the primary outcome by 5 years; the best results for a group were 67% for glargine and 68% for liraglutide. In general, the results showed that liraglutide and insulin glargine were superior to glimepiride and sitagliptin in controlling blood sugars. They provided approximately 6 months’ more time with blood glucose levels in the desired range compared with sitagliptin, which was shown to provide the least amount of time in maintaining glucose levels. Fifty-five percent of the sitagliptin group experienced the primary outcome at 1 year. Sitagliptin was particularly ineffective for the patient subgroup with an A1C at baseline of 7.8% or higher, where 70% reached the primary outcome in 1 year. The results were uniform regarding age, race, sex, and ethnicity of the trial participants. The intention-to-treat design of the study limits the conclusions about A1C differences, as failure to maintain an A1C under 7.5% required addition of prandial insulin for the glargine group and the addition of glargine to the other 3 groups. Although subjects receiving glargine had an initial glucose-lowering effect that was less than that seen with liraglutide, the ability to keep titrating the glargine likely had an impact on the long-term benefit of that agent. When the glargine group neared or in some cases even passed the secondary outcome A1C level of 7.5%, the basal insulin was increased to lower the A1C, sometimes even when the protocol would recommend adding prandial insulin.
The study was not powered specifically for determining the relative risk of CV events. However, there was some evidence that liraglutide was associated with lower CV risk than the other 3 agents by about 30%. There was no difference in microvascular risk among the agents in this study of relatively short-term disease. Side effects were not a major problem and no different than expected. Glargine and glimepiride were associated with less weight loss, while liraglutide had a particular benefit on weight. Glimepiride is associated with significantly more frequent incidents of severe hypoglycemia, though the rates of severe hypoglycemia were quite low. Liraglutide users reported significantly higher rates of nausea and had a higher early drop-out rate, but did not show a difference in continued use by the end of the study.
In summary, the GRADE trial confirmed that glucose control in T2D is a progressive problem, as the addition of all 4 classes of medication failed to keep most patients in the target glucose range. However, basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs outperformed the other 2 classes. Sitagliptin has the poorest metabolic profile. One could argue that, based on overall metabolic control and concomitant weight benefits, less need for glucose monitoring, simple titration, apparent CV benefit, and insignificant hypoglycemia, GLP-1 RAs offer the best option as an agent to add to metformin. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the agent used to represent this class in the study appears to be less effective in reducing glucose and weight and offers less convenience than the newer, once-weekly GLP-RAs available today.
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic, progressive disease marked by ongoing decline in insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function over time. Clinical trials have shown that lowering A1C to ∼7.0% (53 mmol/mol), especially after an early diagnosis, can markedly reduce the long-term complications of T2D. Metformin has become the generally recommended first therapeutic agent in treating T2D due to the drug’s long-term experience, effectiveness, and avoidance of hypoglycemia or weight gain. However, it is clear that additional agents are necessary to regain glucose control when metformin eventually fails due to the progressive nature of the disease.
Insufficient data on comparative efficacy and durability of effect has led to uncertainty in recommendations for the preferred second agent. Comparative effectiveness has been reported primarily in industry-sponsored trials of relatively short duration. With this in mind, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) sponsored the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness (GRADE) Study. This landmark, randomized controlled study was initiated in 2013, enrolling patients on metformin alone within 10 years of diagnosis of T2D. It involved 36 research sites in the United States with a mean follow-up of 5 years. The participants were randomized to adding a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (sitagliptin), a sulfonylurea (glimepiride), basal insulin (glargine), or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) (liraglutide), with the primary outcome being time to A1C over 7.0%.
The GRADE study was unique in several ways: its size, scope, length, and the fact that the financial support and design planning stemmed from a U34 planning grant from the NIDDK. The study population of 5047 participants was very diverse, reflecting the population affected by T2D. A mix of racial and ethnic groups were represented, including 19.8% Black participants and 18.6% Hispanic participants. It is unlikely that a similar comparative effectiveness trial of pharmacologic treatment of T2D will be performed again in the future, considering the high costs and length of time required for such a study amid the dynamic drug development environment today. In fact, the final implementation of study results is somewhat complicated by the subsequent approval of GLP-1 RAs of greater efficacy, weight loss, and convenience, as well as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and, most recently, a dual GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist (tirzepatide). Many of these newer agents have demonstrated nonglycemic benefits, such as reduced risk of cardiovascular (CV) events or reduced progression of renal disease. The findings from the GRADE study, however, did provide important insight on the long-term management of T2D.
The GRADE study was the first to compare the efficacy of 4 US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for T2D in maintaining blood glucose levels for the longest amount of time in patients with T2D. It also monitored microvascular complications, CV events, and adverse drug effects.
An important message of the study that may be overlooked is that all of the studied agents’ ability to maintain an A1C under 7.0% was quite low—as 71% of all participants reached the primary outcome by 5 years; the best results for a group were 67% for glargine and 68% for liraglutide. In general, the results showed that liraglutide and insulin glargine were superior to glimepiride and sitagliptin in controlling blood sugars. They provided approximately 6 months’ more time with blood glucose levels in the desired range compared with sitagliptin, which was shown to provide the least amount of time in maintaining glucose levels. Fifty-five percent of the sitagliptin group experienced the primary outcome at 1 year. Sitagliptin was particularly ineffective for the patient subgroup with an A1C at baseline of 7.8% or higher, where 70% reached the primary outcome in 1 year. The results were uniform regarding age, race, sex, and ethnicity of the trial participants. The intention-to-treat design of the study limits the conclusions about A1C differences, as failure to maintain an A1C under 7.5% required addition of prandial insulin for the glargine group and the addition of glargine to the other 3 groups. Although subjects receiving glargine had an initial glucose-lowering effect that was less than that seen with liraglutide, the ability to keep titrating the glargine likely had an impact on the long-term benefit of that agent. When the glargine group neared or in some cases even passed the secondary outcome A1C level of 7.5%, the basal insulin was increased to lower the A1C, sometimes even when the protocol would recommend adding prandial insulin.
The study was not powered specifically for determining the relative risk of CV events. However, there was some evidence that liraglutide was associated with lower CV risk than the other 3 agents by about 30%. There was no difference in microvascular risk among the agents in this study of relatively short-term disease. Side effects were not a major problem and no different than expected. Glargine and glimepiride were associated with less weight loss, while liraglutide had a particular benefit on weight. Glimepiride is associated with significantly more frequent incidents of severe hypoglycemia, though the rates of severe hypoglycemia were quite low. Liraglutide users reported significantly higher rates of nausea and had a higher early drop-out rate, but did not show a difference in continued use by the end of the study.
In summary, the GRADE trial confirmed that glucose control in T2D is a progressive problem, as the addition of all 4 classes of medication failed to keep most patients in the target glucose range. However, basal insulin and GLP-1 RAs outperformed the other 2 classes. Sitagliptin has the poorest metabolic profile. One could argue that, based on overall metabolic control and concomitant weight benefits, less need for glucose monitoring, simple titration, apparent CV benefit, and insignificant hypoglycemia, GLP-1 RAs offer the best option as an agent to add to metformin. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the agent used to represent this class in the study appears to be less effective in reducing glucose and weight and offers less convenience than the newer, once-weekly GLP-RAs available today.
The 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is increasing
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
John Whyte, MD: Hello, I’m Dr. John Whyte, the Chief Medical Officer of WebMD. One of those cancers was pancreatic cancer, which historically has had a very low survival rate. What’s going on here? Are we doing better with diagnosis, treatment, a combination?
Joining me today is Dr. Lynn Matrisian. She is PanCAN’s chief science officer. Dr. Matrisian, thanks for joining me today. It’s great to see you.
Lynn Matrisian, PhD, MBA: Great to be here. Thank you.
Dr. Whyte: Well, tell me what your first reaction was when you saw the recent data from the American Cancer Society. What one word would you use?
Dr. Matrisian: Hopeful. I think hopeful in general that survival rates are increasing, not for all cancers, but for many cancers. We continue to make progress. Research is making a difference. And we’re making progress against cancer in general.
Dr. Whyte: You’re passionate, as our viewers know, about pancreatic cancer. And that’s been one of the hardest cancers to treat, and one of the lowest survival rates. But there’s some encouraging news that we saw, didn’t we?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. So the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer went up a whole percentage. It’s at 12% now. And what’s really good is it was at 11% last year. It was at 10% the year before. So that’s 2 years in a row that we’ve had an increase in the 5-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer. So we’re hopeful that’s a trajectory that we can really capitalize on is how fast we’re making progress in this disease.
Dr. Whyte: I want to put it into context, Lynn. Because some people might be thinking, 1%? Like you’re excited about 1%? That doesn’t seem that much. But correct me if I’m wrong. A one percentage point increase means 641 more loved ones will enjoy life’s moments, as you put it, 5 years after their diagnosis that otherwise wouldn’t have. What does that practically mean to viewers?
Dr. Matrisian: That means that more than 600 people in the United States will hug a loved one 5 years after that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. It is a very deadly disease. But we’re going to, by continuing to make progress, it gives those moments to those people. And it means that we’re making progress against the disease in general.
Dr. Whyte: So even 1%, and 1% each year, does have value.
Dr. Matrisian: It has a lot of value.
Dr. Whyte: What’s driving this improvement? Is it better screening? And we’re not so great still in screening a pancreatic cancer. Is it the innovation in cancer treatments? What do you think is accounting for what we hope is this trajectory of increases in 5-year survival?
Dr. Matrisian: Right, so the nice thing the reason that we like looking at 5-year survival rates is because it takes into account all of those things. And we have actually made progress in all of those things. So by looking at those that are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in general as a whole, and looking at their survival, we are looking at better treatments. People who are getting pancreatic cancer later are living longer as a result of better treatments.
But it’s not just that. It’s also, if you’re diagnosed earlier, your 5-year survival rate is higher. More people who are diagnosed early live to five years than those that are diagnosed later. So within that statistic, there are more people who are diagnosed earlier. And those people also live longer. So it takes into account all of those things, which is why we really like to look at that five-year survival rate for a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: Where are we on screening? Because we always want to catch people early. That gives them that greatest chance of survival. Have we made much improvements there? And if we have, what are they?
Dr. Matrisian: Well we have made improvements there are more people that are now diagnosed with localized disease than there were 20 years ago. So that is increasing. And we’re still doing it really by being aware of the symptoms right now. Being aware that kind of chronic indigestion, lower back pain that won’t go away, these are signs and symptoms. And especially things like jaundice ...
Dr. Whyte: That yellow color that they might see.
Dr. Matrisian: Yes, that yellow colors in your eye, that’s a really important symptom that would certainly send people to the doctor in order to look at this. So some of it is being more aware and finding the disease earlier. But what we’re really hoping for is some sort of blood test or some sort of other way of looking through medical records and identifying those people that need to go and be checked.
Dr. Whyte: Now we chatted about that almost two years ago. So tell me the progress that we’ve made. How are we doing?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah, well there’s a number of companies now that have blood tests that are available. They still need more work. They still need more studies to really understand how good they are at finding pancreatic cancer early. But we didn’t have them a couple of years ago. And so it’s really a very exciting time in the field, that there’s companies that were taking advantage of research for many years and actually turning it into a commercial product that is available for people to check.
Dr. Whyte: And then what about treatments? More treatment options today than there were just a few years ago, but still a lot of progress to be made. So when we talk about even 12% 5-year survival, we’d love to see it much more. And you talk about, I don’t want to misquote, so correct me if I’m wrong. Your goal is 20%. Five-year survival by 2030. That’s not too far. So, Lynn, how are we going to get there?
Dr. Matrisian: Okay, well this is our mission. And that’s exactly our goal, 20% by 2030. So we’ve got some work to do. And we are working at both fronts. You’re right, we need better treatments. And so we’ve set up a clinical trial platform where we can look at a lot of different treatments much more efficiently, much faster, kind of taking advantage of an infrastructure to do that. And that’s called Precision Promise. And we’re excited about that as a way to get new treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer.
And then we’re also working on the early detection end. We think an important symptom of pancreatic cancer that isn’t often recognized is new onset diabetes, sudden diabetes in those over 50 where that person did not have diabetes before. So it’s new, looks like type 2 diabetes, but it’s actually caused by pancreatic cancer.
And so we have an initiative, The Early Detection Initiative, that is taking advantage of that. And seeing if we image people right away based on that symptom, can we find pancreatic cancer early? So we think it’s important to look both at trying to diagnose it earlier, as well as trying to treat it better for advanced disease.
Dr. Whyte: Yeah. You know, at WebMD we’re always trying to empower people with better information so they can also become advocates for their health. You’re an expert in advocacy on pancreatic cancer. So what’s your advice to listeners as to how they become good advocates for themselves or advocates in general for loved ones who have pancreatic cancer?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well certainly, knowledge is power. And so the real thing to do is to call the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. This is what we do. We stay up on the most current information. We have very experienced case managers who can help navigate the complexities of pancreatic cancer at every stage of the journey.
Or if you have questions about pancreatic cancer, call PanCAN. Go to PanCAN.org and give us a call. Because it’s really that knowledge, knowing what it is that you need to get more knowledge about, how to advocate for yourself is very important in a disease, in any disease, but in particular a disease like pancreatic cancer.
Dr. Whyte: And I don’t want to dismiss the progress that we’ve made, that you’ve just referenced in terms of the increased survival. But there’s still a long way to go. We need a lot more dollars for research. We need a lot more clinical trials to take place. What’s your message to a viewer who’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer or a loved one? What’s your message, Lynn, today for them?
Dr. Matrisian: Well, first, get as much knowledge as you can. Call PanCAN, and let us help you help your loved one. But then help us. Let’s do research. Let’s do more research. Let’s understand this disease better so we can make those kinds of progress in both treatment and early detection.
And PanCAN works very hard at understanding the disease and setting up research programs that are going to make a difference, that are going to get us to that aggressive goal of 20% survival by 2030. So there is a lot of things that can be done, raise awareness to your friends and neighbors about the disease, lots of things that will help this whole field.
Dr. Whyte: What’s your feeling on second opinions? Given that this can be a difficult cancer to treat, given that there’s emerging therapies that are always developing, when you have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, is it important to consider getting a second opinion?
Dr. Matrisian: Yes. Yes, it is. And our case managers will help with that process. We do think it’s important.
Dr. Whyte: Because sometimes, Lynn, people just want to get started, right? Get it out of me. Get treatment. And sometimes getting a second opinion, doing some genomic testing can take time. So what’s your response to that?
Dr. Matrisian: Yeah. Yeah. Well we say, your care team is very important. Who is on your care team, and it may take a little time to find the right people on your care team. But that is an incredibly important step. Sometimes it’s not just one person. Sometimes you need more than one doctor, more than one nurse, more than one type of specialty to help you deal with this. And taking the time to do that is incredibly important.
Yes, you need to – you do need to act. But act smart. And do it with knowledge. Do it really understanding what your options are, and advocate for yourself.
Dr. Whyte: And surround yourself as you reference with that right care team for you, because that’s the most important thing when you have any type of cancer diagnosis. Dr. Lynn Matrisian, I want to thank you for taking time today.
Dr. Matrisian: Thank you so much, John.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dapagliflozin gets expanded heart failure indication in Europe
The European Commission has expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include heart failure across the full spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction – including HF with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca has announced.
The EC nod for the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (known as Farxiga in the United States) follows the positive opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency in December 2022.
The committee’s decision was based on results from the DELIVER phase 3 trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with HF regardless of their left ventricular function.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the European Society of Cardiology’s annual congress.
The data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said study presenter Scott D. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
The Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing AstraZeneca’s application to expand the HF indication for dapagliflozin in the United States.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Commission has expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include heart failure across the full spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction – including HF with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca has announced.
The EC nod for the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (known as Farxiga in the United States) follows the positive opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency in December 2022.
The committee’s decision was based on results from the DELIVER phase 3 trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with HF regardless of their left ventricular function.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the European Society of Cardiology’s annual congress.
The data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said study presenter Scott D. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
The Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing AstraZeneca’s application to expand the HF indication for dapagliflozin in the United States.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Commission has expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Forxiga) to include heart failure across the full spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction – including HF with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction, AstraZeneca has announced.
The EC nod for the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (known as Farxiga in the United States) follows the positive opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency in December 2022.
The committee’s decision was based on results from the DELIVER phase 3 trial, which showed clear clinical benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with HF regardless of their left ventricular function.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the European Society of Cardiology’s annual congress.
The data support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as “foundational agents for virtually all patients with heart failure” regardless of their ejection fraction or whether or not they have type 2 diabetes, said study presenter Scott D. Solomon, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
The Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing AstraZeneca’s application to expand the HF indication for dapagliflozin in the United States.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Keto for life? Reasons to think twice
Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.
Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.
If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.
How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.
If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
Keto for life?
Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.
Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.
Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.
The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
Why are we fooling the brain?
We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.
That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.
It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.
The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.
Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.
The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.
Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.
Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.
If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.
How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.
If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
Keto for life?
Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.
Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.
Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.
The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
Why are we fooling the brain?
We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.
That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.
It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.
The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.
Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.
The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.
Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is the ketogenic diet the only way to lose weight? Of course not! Keep track of calories in vs. calories out and almost anyone can lose weight. The problem is keeping it off. To understand that, we need to look at metabolic adaptation and the biology of obesity.
Our bodies have a “set point” that is epigenetically latched onto the environment the brain senses, just as the fetal environment responds to the maternal environment.
If food is plentiful, our hormones force us to eat until our bodies feel that there are enough fat stores to survive. Because of environmental influences such as highly processed food, preservatives, climate change, and regulation of temperature, our brains have decided that we need more adipose tissue than we did 50-100 years ago. It could be that an element in food has caused a dysfunction of the pathways that regulate our body weight, and most of us “defend” a higher body weight in this environment.
How to counteract that? Not easily. The ketogenic diet works temporarily just like any other diet where calorie intake is lower than usual. It seems to be agreeable to many people because they say they feel full after eating protein, fat, and perhaps some vegetables. Protein and fat are certainly more satiating than simple carbohydrates.
If strictly followed, a ketogenic diet will force the body to burn fat and go into ketosis. Without a source for glucose, the brain will burn ketones from fat stores. Owen and colleagues discovered this in 1969 when they did their now-famous studies of fasting in inpatients at Brigham and Women’s hospital, using IV amino acids to protect muscle mass.
Keto for life?
Is the ketogenic diet a healthy diet for the long term? That is a different question.
Of course not – we need high-fiber carbohydrate sources such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables to keep the colon healthy and obtain the vitamins and minerals needed to make the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, work at its best.
Why, then, are we promoting ketogenic diets for those with obesity and type 2 diabetes? Ketogenic or low-carbohydrate diets are easy to teach and can rapidly help patients lose weight and return their blood glucose, blood pressure, and other metabolic parameters to normal.
The patient will be instructed to avoid all highly processed foods. Studies have shown that highly processed foods, created to maximize flavor, “coerce” people to eat more calories than when presented with the same number of calories in unprocessed foods, a way to fool the brain.
Why are we fooling the brain?
We circumvent the natural satiety mechanisms that start with the gut. When we eat, our gastric fundus and intestinal stretch receptors start the process that informs the hypothalamus about food intake. Highly processed foods are usually devoid of fiber and volume, and pack in the calories in small volumes so that the stretch receptors are not activated until more calories are ingested. The study mentioned above developed two ad lib diets with the same number of calories, sugar, fat, and carbohydrate content – one ultraprocessed and the other unprocessed.
That explanation is just the tip of the iceberg, because a lot more than primitive stretch receptors is informing the brain. There are gut hormones that are secreted before and after meals, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and cholecystokinin (CCK), among a slew of others. These peptide hormones are all secreted from gut cells into the blood or vagus nerve, or both, and alert the brain that there is or is not enough food to maintain body weight at its set point.
It’s a highly regulated and precise system that regulates body weight for survival of the species in this environment. However, the environment has changed over the past 100 years but our genetic makeup for survival of the fittest has not. The mechanism of action for defense of a higher body weight set point in this new environment has not been elucidated as yet. Most likely, there are many players or instigators involved, such as food-supply changes, sedentary lifestyle, ambient temperature, fetal programming, air quality, and global warming and climate change, to name a few.
The goal of obesity researchers is to investigate the underlying mechanisms of the increased prevalence of obesity over the past 100 years. The goal of obesity medicine specialists is to treat obesity in adults and children, and to prevent obesity as much as possible with lifestyle change and medications that have been shown to help “reverse” the metabolic adaptation to this environment. Our newest GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists have been shown in animal models to hit several pathways that lead to obesity. They are not just appetite suppressants. Yes, they do modulate appetite and satiety, but they also affect energy expenditure. The body’s normal reaction to a lack of calorie intake is to reduce resting energy expenditure until body weight increases back to “set point levels.” These agonists prevent that metabolic adaptation. That is why they are true agents that can treat obesity – the disease.
Back to the ketogenic diet. The ketogenic diet can fool the brain temporarily by using protein and fat to elicit satiety with less food intake in calories. After a while, however, gut hormones and other factors begin to counteract the weight loss with a reduction in resting energy and total energy expenditure, and other metabolic measures, to get the body back to a certain body weight set point.
The ketogenic diet also can help dieters avoid ultra- and highly processed foods. In the end, any type of diet that lowers caloric intake will work for weight loss, but it’s the maintenance of that weight loss that makes a long-term difference, and that involves closing the metabolic gap that the body generates to defend fat mass. Understanding this pathophysiology will allow obesity medicine specialists to assist patients with obesity to lose weight and keep it off.
Dr. Apovian is in the department of medicine, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension, and codirector, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Harvard Medical School, Boston. She disclosed ties with Altimmune, Cowen and Company, Currax Pharmaceuticals, EPG Communication Holdings, Gelesis Srl, L-Nutra, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, GI Dynamics, and Novo Nordisk. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Persistent gaps in drug use by patients with type 2 diabetes
Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.
A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.
A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.
“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.
Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.
The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.
Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.
“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”
“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.
“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.
“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Investigating trends in medication adherence
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.
After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.
Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.
However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.
Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.
The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.
About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).
Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.
“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.
They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.
The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.
It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.
Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.
“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.
“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.
This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.
Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).
The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.
A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.
A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.
“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.
Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.
The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.
Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.
“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”
“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.
“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.
“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Investigating trends in medication adherence
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.
After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.
Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.
However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.
Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.
The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.
About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).
Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.
“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.
They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.
The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.
It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.
Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.
“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.
“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.
This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.
Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).
The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.
A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.
A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.
“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.
Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.
The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.
Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.
“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”
“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.
“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.
“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Investigating trends in medication adherence
Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.
After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.
Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.
However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.
Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.
The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.
About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).
Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.
“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.
They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.
The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.
It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.
Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.
“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.
“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.
This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.
Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).
The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D cuts diabetes risk
Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).
All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.
The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.
They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.
Differences from previous analyses
The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.
The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”
Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.
“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”
“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.
Small reduction but large population
The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.
As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.
“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.
Editorialists urge caution
In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.
They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.
“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.
Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.
“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.
Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.
Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.
Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.
Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.
Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.
Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.
The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).
All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.
The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.
They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.
Differences from previous analyses
The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.
The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”
Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.
“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”
“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.
Small reduction but large population
The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.
As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.
“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.
Editorialists urge caution
In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.
They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.
“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.
Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.
“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.
Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.
Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.
Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.
Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.
Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.
Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.
The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).
All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.
The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.
They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.
Differences from previous analyses
The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.
The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”
Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.
“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”
“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.
Small reduction but large population
The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.
As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.
“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.
Editorialists urge caution
In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.
They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.
“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.
Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.
“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.
Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.
Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.
Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.
Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.
Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.
Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.
The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE