User login
Respiratory infections, asthma rise before type 2 diabetes
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.
Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.
Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.
“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”
Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.
Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”
But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis
Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.
The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”
By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.
Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”
“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.
In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.
After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.
Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.
Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.
“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”
Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.
Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”
But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis
Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.
The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”
By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.
Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”
“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.
In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.
After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.
Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.
Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.
“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”
Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.
Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”
But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis
Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.
The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”
By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.
Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”
“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.
In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.
After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
Precision medicine takes individual approach to diabetes
HAMBURG, GERMANY –
“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.
The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”
Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.
Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”
A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”
However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”
Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
Currently, a dearth of data
Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”
Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”
In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.
This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’
An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”
That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.
Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”
And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”
Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY –
“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.
The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”
Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.
Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”
A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”
However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”
Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
Currently, a dearth of data
Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”
Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”
In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.
This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’
An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”
That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.
Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”
And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”
Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY –
“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.
The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”
Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.
Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”
A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.
In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”
However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”
Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
Currently, a dearth of data
Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”
Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”
In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.
This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’
An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”
That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.
Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”
And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”
Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Weight loss with semaglutide maintained for up to 3 years
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Tirzepatide with insulin glargine improves type 2 diabetes
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.
It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.
Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”
Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.
The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”
Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine
The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.
Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”
The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).
Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m2). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.
Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.
About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”
Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”
Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide
Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.
In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.
“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.
Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.
Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”
There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.
The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.
It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.
Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”
Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.
The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”
Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine
The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.
Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”
The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).
Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m2). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.
Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.
About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”
Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”
Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide
Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.
In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.
“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.
Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.
Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”
There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.
The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.
It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.
Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”
Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.
The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”
Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine
The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.
Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”
The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).
Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m2). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.
Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.
About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”
Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”
Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide
Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.
In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.
“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.
Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.
Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”
There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.
The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
Menstruation linked to underdiagnosis of type 2 diabetes?
The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.
In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.
The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.
They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”
Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.
“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”
Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”
But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.”
Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD
Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.
In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.
The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”
However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”
The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.
Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.
Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years
The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.
However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).
The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”
Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.
Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.
The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.
Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”
“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”
Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.
In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.
The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.
They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”
Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.
“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”
Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”
But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.”
Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD
Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.
In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.
The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”
However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”
The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.
Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.
Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years
The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.
However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).
The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”
Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.
Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.
The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.
Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”
“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”
Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.
In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.
The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.
They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”
Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.
“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”
Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”
But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.”
Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD
Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.
In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.
The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”
However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”
The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.
Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.
Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years
The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.
However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).
The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”
Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.
Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.
The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.
Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”
“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”
Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Can zoo poo help manage diabetic foot ulcers?
In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.
The scourge of antibiotic resistance
Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.
A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine
Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.
What are bacteriophages?
Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).
Findings and future directions
Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.
While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising.
We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.
The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.
This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.
Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.
The scourge of antibiotic resistance
Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.
A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine
Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.
What are bacteriophages?
Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).
Findings and future directions
Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.
While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising.
We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.
The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.
This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.
Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.
The scourge of antibiotic resistance
Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.
A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine
Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.
What are bacteriophages?
Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).
Findings and future directions
Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.
While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising.
We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.
The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.
This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.
Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Support tool reduces hypoglycemia risk in type 2 diabetes
TOPLINE:
Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.
METHODOLOGY:
- The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
- Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
- Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
- Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
- In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
- Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
- Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.
IN PRACTICE:
The HypoPrevent study results with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.
SOURCE:
The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
LIMITATIONS:
Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.
METHODOLOGY:
- The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
- Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
- Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
- Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
- In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
- Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
- Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.
IN PRACTICE:
The HypoPrevent study results with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.
SOURCE:
The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
LIMITATIONS:
Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Use of a novel clinical-decision support tool and shared decision-making in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes managed in a primary care practice and at high risk for hypoglycemic episodes led to a 46% decrease in the number of at-risk patients and discontinuation of hypoglycemic agents in 20% in a prospective, 6-month, single-arm study with 94 patients.
METHODOLOGY:
- The HypoPrevent study enrolled 94 people from a Pennsylvania primary care practice who were at least 65 years old with type 2 diabetes and at risk for hypoglycemia because of treatment with insulin or sulfonylureas, and having a hemoglobin A1c of less than 7.0%.
- Clinicians and patients used a newly devised hypoglycemia reduction clinical-decision support tool developed by the Endocrine Society and a health care consulting company to help guide shared decision-making for a goal A1c level, potential changes to treatment, and other steps to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.
- Primary outcomes during 6-month follow-up were impact of the intervention on A1c, changes in use of insulin or sulfonylureas, change in the number of study patients at risk for hypoglycemia, and impact on the incidence of nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) measured with the Treatment-Related Impact Measure–Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO) survey.
TAKEAWAY:
- Patients averaged 74 years old, 57% were women, 95% were White, 61% had diabetes for more than 10 years, 48% had chronic kidney disease, 51% were on insulin, 47% on a sulfonylurea, and 80 of the 94 enrolled patients completed all three study visits.
- Nineteen patients (20%) reduced their dose of or discontinued insulin or sulfonylurea.
- In patients with both baseline and follow-up A1c measures, A1c rose from 6.29% at baseline to 6.82%.
- Fifty patients set an A1c goal and had a timely follow-up A1c measurement, and in this subgroup the number of patients at risk for hypoglycemia decreased by 46%, a significant change.
- Patients who reported at least one NSHE at baseline had a significant reduction between the baseline survey and follow-up visits in both the total score as well as each of the five scored domains.
IN PRACTICE:
The HypoPrevent study results with positive results,” concluded the researchers in their report.
SOURCE:
The HypoPrevent study was funded and organized by the Endocrine Society in collaboration with a multicenter team of researchers. The report appeared in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
LIMITATIONS:
Lack of a control group makes it impossible to conclusively determine whether the intervention led to the observed increases in A1c levels, nor can the study exclude regression to the mean as the cause for lowered A1c levels.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received funding from Abbott, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Two coauthors had individual disclosures listed in the report; the other six coauthors had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Weekly insulin with dosing app beneficial in type 2 diabetes
TOPLINE:
with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
- A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).
TAKEAWAY:
- A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
- Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
- Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).
IN PRACTICE:
“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
- A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).
TAKEAWAY:
- A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
- Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
- Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).
IN PRACTICE:
“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with improved treatment satisfaction and compliance scores and similarly low hypoglycemia rates.
METHODOLOGY:
- A 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements was conducted at 176 sites in seven countries.
- A total of 1,085 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive icodec with a dosing guide app or daily analogs (U100 glargine, U300 glargine, or icodec).
TAKEAWAY:
- A1c levels dropped from 8.96% at baseline to 7.24% at week 52 with icodec and from 8.88% to 7.61% with the daily analog, a treatment difference of 0.37 percentage point (P < .001 for noninferiority and P = .009 for superiority in favor of icodec plus the app).
- Patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec plus the app vs. daily analogs, with estimated treatment differences that were significant for the Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes (3.04) but not the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (0.78).
- Observed rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low (0.19 event per patient-year of exposure for icodec plus the app vs. 0.14 for daily analogs; estimated rate ratio, 1.17).
IN PRACTICE:
“Once-weekly icodec with a dosing guide app could conceivably address several challenges seen in everyday practice, including inadequate dose titration and nonadherence to prescribed treatment regimens.”
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, MPH, of LMC Diabetes and Endocrinology, Brampton, Ontario, and colleagues. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The research could not differentiate between the effects of icodec and those of the dosing guide app. The study had an open-label design. A 1-year duration is insufficient to assess long-term diabetes- and cardiovascular-related outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Are vitamin D levels key to canagliflozin’s fracture risk?
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.
The new findings, from a small study of Amish adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL) but without diabetes or osteoporosis, suggest that physicians consider screening for vitamin D deficiency prior to prescribing SGLT2 inhibitor. Alternatively, these patients can simply be prescribed safe, inexpensive, OTC vitamin D supplements without being screening, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Something as simple as OTC vitamin D might protect against bone fractures caused by chronic multiyear treatment with a drug,” study lead author Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, said in an interview.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11 adults with vitamin D deficiency underwent two canagliflozin challenge protocols of 300 mg/d for 5 days, once before and once after vitamin D3 supplementation (either 50,000 IU per week or twice weekly for body mass index < 30 kg/m2 or ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively), to achieve 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL.
When the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin significantly decreased 1,25(OH)2D levels by 31.3%, from 43.8 pg/mL on day 1 to 29.1 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .0003). In contrast, after receiving the vitamin D3 supplements, canagliflozin reduced mean 1,25(OH)2D levels by a nonsignificant 9.3%, from 45 pg/mL on day 1 to 41 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .3).
“Thus, [vitamin D3] supplementation provided statistically significant protection from the adverse effect of canagliflozin to decrease mean plasma levels of 1,25(OH)2D (P = .04),” Yazdi and colleagues wrote.
Similarly, when the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin was associated with a significant 36.2% increase in mean parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, from 47.5 pg/mL on day 1 to 58.5 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .0009). In contrast, after vitamin D3 supplementation, the increase in PTH was far less, from 48.4 pg/mL on day 1 to 53.3 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .02).
Therefore, the supplementation “significantly decreased the magnitude of the canagliflozin-induced increase in mean levels of PTH (P = .005),” they wrote.
Also, in the vitamin D deficient state, canagliflozin significantly increased mean serum phosphorous on day 3 in comparison with day 1 (P = .007), while after supplementation, that change was also insignificant (P = .8).
“We are saying that SGLT2 inhibitors, when superimposed on vitamin D deficiency, is bad for bone health. This group of people have two important risk factors – vitamin D deficiency and SGLT2 inhibitors – and are distinct from the general population of people who are not vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Taylor noted.
The findings “raise interesting questions about how to proceed,” he said in an interview, since “the gold standard study – in this case, a fracture prevention study – will never be done because it would cost more than $100 million. Vitamin D costs only $10-$20 per year, and at appropriate doses, is extremely safe. At worst, vitamin D supplements are unnecessary. At best, vitamin D supplements can protect some patients against a serious drug toxicity, bone fracture.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and receives an inventor’s share of royalties from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases for metreleptin as a treatment for generalized lipodystrophy. Dr. Yazdi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.
The new findings, from a small study of Amish adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL) but without diabetes or osteoporosis, suggest that physicians consider screening for vitamin D deficiency prior to prescribing SGLT2 inhibitor. Alternatively, these patients can simply be prescribed safe, inexpensive, OTC vitamin D supplements without being screening, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Something as simple as OTC vitamin D might protect against bone fractures caused by chronic multiyear treatment with a drug,” study lead author Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, said in an interview.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11 adults with vitamin D deficiency underwent two canagliflozin challenge protocols of 300 mg/d for 5 days, once before and once after vitamin D3 supplementation (either 50,000 IU per week or twice weekly for body mass index < 30 kg/m2 or ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively), to achieve 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL.
When the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin significantly decreased 1,25(OH)2D levels by 31.3%, from 43.8 pg/mL on day 1 to 29.1 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .0003). In contrast, after receiving the vitamin D3 supplements, canagliflozin reduced mean 1,25(OH)2D levels by a nonsignificant 9.3%, from 45 pg/mL on day 1 to 41 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .3).
“Thus, [vitamin D3] supplementation provided statistically significant protection from the adverse effect of canagliflozin to decrease mean plasma levels of 1,25(OH)2D (P = .04),” Yazdi and colleagues wrote.
Similarly, when the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin was associated with a significant 36.2% increase in mean parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, from 47.5 pg/mL on day 1 to 58.5 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .0009). In contrast, after vitamin D3 supplementation, the increase in PTH was far less, from 48.4 pg/mL on day 1 to 53.3 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .02).
Therefore, the supplementation “significantly decreased the magnitude of the canagliflozin-induced increase in mean levels of PTH (P = .005),” they wrote.
Also, in the vitamin D deficient state, canagliflozin significantly increased mean serum phosphorous on day 3 in comparison with day 1 (P = .007), while after supplementation, that change was also insignificant (P = .8).
“We are saying that SGLT2 inhibitors, when superimposed on vitamin D deficiency, is bad for bone health. This group of people have two important risk factors – vitamin D deficiency and SGLT2 inhibitors – and are distinct from the general population of people who are not vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Taylor noted.
The findings “raise interesting questions about how to proceed,” he said in an interview, since “the gold standard study – in this case, a fracture prevention study – will never be done because it would cost more than $100 million. Vitamin D costs only $10-$20 per year, and at appropriate doses, is extremely safe. At worst, vitamin D supplements are unnecessary. At best, vitamin D supplements can protect some patients against a serious drug toxicity, bone fracture.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and receives an inventor’s share of royalties from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases for metreleptin as a treatment for generalized lipodystrophy. Dr. Yazdi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are beneficial for treating type 2 diabetes and reducing cardiovascular and kidney disease risk. However, some, but not all, trial data have linked the SLGT2 inhibitor canagliflozin to increased fracture risk. That particular agent has been reported to accelerate loss of bone mineral density, which could contribute to fracture risk. Other drugs in the class have also been implicated in worsening markers of bone health.
The new findings, from a small study of Amish adults with vitamin D deficiency (≤ 20 ng/mL) but without diabetes or osteoporosis, suggest that physicians consider screening for vitamin D deficiency prior to prescribing SGLT2 inhibitor. Alternatively, these patients can simply be prescribed safe, inexpensive, OTC vitamin D supplements without being screening, Zhinous Shahidzadeh Yazdi, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
“Something as simple as OTC vitamin D might protect against bone fractures caused by chronic multiyear treatment with a drug,” study lead author Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, said in an interview.
In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 11 adults with vitamin D deficiency underwent two canagliflozin challenge protocols of 300 mg/d for 5 days, once before and once after vitamin D3 supplementation (either 50,000 IU per week or twice weekly for body mass index < 30 kg/m2 or ≥ 30 kg/m2, respectively), to achieve 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL.
When the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin significantly decreased 1,25(OH)2D levels by 31.3%, from 43.8 pg/mL on day 1 to 29.1 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .0003). In contrast, after receiving the vitamin D3 supplements, canagliflozin reduced mean 1,25(OH)2D levels by a nonsignificant 9.3%, from 45 pg/mL on day 1 to 41 pg/mL on day 3 (P = .3).
“Thus, [vitamin D3] supplementation provided statistically significant protection from the adverse effect of canagliflozin to decrease mean plasma levels of 1,25(OH)2D (P = .04),” Yazdi and colleagues wrote.
Similarly, when the participants were vitamin D deficient, canagliflozin was associated with a significant 36.2% increase in mean parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels, from 47.5 pg/mL on day 1 to 58.5 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .0009). In contrast, after vitamin D3 supplementation, the increase in PTH was far less, from 48.4 pg/mL on day 1 to 53.3 pg/mL on day 6 (P = .02).
Therefore, the supplementation “significantly decreased the magnitude of the canagliflozin-induced increase in mean levels of PTH (P = .005),” they wrote.
Also, in the vitamin D deficient state, canagliflozin significantly increased mean serum phosphorous on day 3 in comparison with day 1 (P = .007), while after supplementation, that change was also insignificant (P = .8).
“We are saying that SGLT2 inhibitors, when superimposed on vitamin D deficiency, is bad for bone health. This group of people have two important risk factors – vitamin D deficiency and SGLT2 inhibitors – and are distinct from the general population of people who are not vitamin D deficient,” Dr. Taylor noted.
The findings “raise interesting questions about how to proceed,” he said in an interview, since “the gold standard study – in this case, a fracture prevention study – will never be done because it would cost more than $100 million. Vitamin D costs only $10-$20 per year, and at appropriate doses, is extremely safe. At worst, vitamin D supplements are unnecessary. At best, vitamin D supplements can protect some patients against a serious drug toxicity, bone fracture.”
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals and receives an inventor’s share of royalties from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases for metreleptin as a treatment for generalized lipodystrophy. Dr. Yazdi disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY AND METABOLISM
FDA panel rejects implanted GLP1-RA dosing device for T2D
Sept. 21 from an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.
The 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.
“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.
The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
“No evidence of improved adherence”
Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.
However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
Seven years of FDA review
This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.
Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week.
But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”
All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Sept. 21 from an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.
The 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.
“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.
The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
“No evidence of improved adherence”
Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.
However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
Seven years of FDA review
This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.
Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week.
But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”
All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Sept. 21 from an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration.
The 19 voting panel members mostly cited concerning signals of both renal toxicity in the form of excess episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) as well as increased cardiovascular events compared with placebo as their main reasons for voting that the developing company, Intarcia Therapeutics, had not shown adequate evidence that the benefits of the drug-device combination, known as ITCA 650, outweighed its risks for treating people with type 2 diabetes.
“I’m quite uncomfortable with the AKI safety,” said panel member Erica Brittain, PhD, deputy chief of the Biostatistics Research Branch of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.
The case that ITCA 650 is ready for routine use was also undermined by uncertainty documented by FDA staff about the uniformity and reliability of exenatide delivery by the DUROS device, a matchstick-sized reservoir that’s placed subcutaneously and designed to deliver exenatide continuously for 6 months at a time, noted Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.
“No evidence of improved adherence”
Another shortcoming was no data on the impact that this form of drug delivery, first developed and FDA approved to treat patients with prostate cancer with leuprolide acetate, really accomplished its goal of improving adherence to a glycemic-control agent. Intarcia Therapeutics presented “no evidence of improved adherence,” said Dr. Low Wang, director of the Glucose Management Team at the University of Colorado Hospital.
However, she and several other panel members acknowledged the compelling comments from several patients and health care professionals experienced in using or administering the device who, during the public comment period, voiced anecdotal testimonials to its positive impact on treatment compliance.
Seven years of FDA review
This review of ITCA 650 capped a nearly 7-year effort by Intarcia Therapeutics to receive marketing approval for ITCA 650 from the FDA, which began with an application filed in November 2016 (and denied by the agency in September 2017). Intarcia resubmitted an amended application in 2019 that the FDA again rejected in 2020. The company’s persistence following that led to the current panel meeting, the first time the ITCA 650 evidence came before an advisory panel.
Committee members in general praised the concept of managing blood glucose by continuous release of a medication 6 months at a time. They also offered ideas on a path forward, such as a study that used an active competitor. Ideally, that could be another agent from the same class of GLP-1 receptor agonists such as Bydureon, an injected formulation of exenatide administered by subcutaneous injection once a week.
But the key, agreed panel members, was to bulk up the evidence that ITCA 650 is safe. “The data show concerning safety signals that need further investigation,” summed up Dr. Low Wong. “There are concerns about overall safety, all-cause mortality, AKI, cardiovascular events, and glycemic excursions.”
All voting members of the advisory committee met the FDA’s standard for having no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.