Type 2 Diabetes ICYMI

Weight loss of at least 15% of body weight should become the “initial principal treatment goal” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new review and proposal published by an international quartet of diabetologists.

Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.

“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
 

Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.

Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.

“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.

The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.

“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).

Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”

“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.

15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal

Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.

At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.

The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.

Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.

The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.

“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.

New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Weight loss of at least 15% of body weight should become the “initial principal treatment goal” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new review and proposal published by an international quartet of diabetologists.

Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.

“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
 

Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.

Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.

“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.

The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.

“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).

Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”

“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.

15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal

Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.

At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.

The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.

Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.

The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.

“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.

New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Weight loss of at least 15% of body weight should become the “initial principal treatment goal” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new review and proposal published by an international quartet of diabetologists.

Although this proposition currently has formal backing from just the four authors of the article published in the Lancet, their recommendation to elevate substantial weight loss to the front line of management for many patients with type 2 diabetes drew quick support from leaders of several diabetes organizations, albeit with some caveats.

“Our main message is that treatment of obesity should be the future of diabetes treatment,” summed up Ildiko Lingvay, MD, lead author of the new review and proposal, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Right now, a relatively small percentage of clinicians [who treat patients with type 2 diabetes] address obesity and know how to treat it. That has to change. Every clinician who treats diabetes needs to know how to treat obesity,” said Dr. Lingvay, a professor in the division of endocrinology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

This requires a sea change in the way clinicians approach treating patients with type 2 diabetes, which until now has generally involved “exclusive focus on glycemic control,” the authors wrote. “Practice management should refocus to effectively incorporate weight management to treat patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Successfully implementing their new, proposed change in focus “will take fundamental change,” noted Dr. Lingvay, who expressed hope that international guidelines will soon endorse this approach, an action that would be “a huge step in the right direction.”
 

Target weight-loss drugs to the right patients.

Initial reactions from representatives of several diabetes and obesity groups suggested that official endorsements of this management strategy for at least a subset of patients with type 2 diabetes may be forthcoming.

“The American Diabetes Association’s standards of care is aligned with this approach in focusing on obesity as a target of management in people with type 2 diabetes,” commented Nuha A. El Sayed, MD, vice president for health care improvement for the ADA. An “area of discussion” is the specific weight-loss target of at least 15%, because patients benefit from more modest weight losses of 5%-7%, and a target loss of 15% may not be achievable for some patients, she noted in a statement.

The ADA’s leadership and its professional practice committee will “carefully consider” the new, published proposal, added Dr. El Sayed, a diabetologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston.

Similar caution over generalizability of the 15% loss target came from Stefano Del Prato, MD, president of the European Society for the Study of Diabetes.

“Not everyone responds to the same extent” to the newest pharmaceuticals for facilitating weight loss, such as the glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists, so the ideal would be to try to “identify patients who respond better to weight loss and can lose at least 15% of their weight. We need to improve our ability to identify patients who respond better,” said Dr. Del Prato, a professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Pisa (Italy).

Despite this, he agreed in an interview that “a significant reduction in body weight should be seen as a target for treatment of type 2 diabetes,”

“Appropriate training for obesity management is essential for those working on type 2 diabetes prevention or management,” commented Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, a professor of biological psychology at the University Of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

For some patients with type 2 diabetes “losing 10%-15% of body weight can mean their diabetes goes into remission,” and “losing even a small amount of weight can be life changing, it can help people better manage their blood sugars and blood pressure, and reduce their risk for developing diabetes complications like heart disease and sight loss,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications for Diabetes UK.

15% loss is a ‘reachable’ goal

Dr. Lingvay and coauthors acknowledged that weight loss of less than 15% can benefit many patients with type 2 diabetes, but they felt that a loss of at least 15% gives patients a realistic and potentially potent goal to strive for.

At least 15% loss “is a goal that is beneficial and reachable for many patients. Not everyone will get there, but the closer that patients get to this, or beyond, the bigger their benefit,” she explained. “There is no magic number” for exactly how much weight a patient needs to lose to improve their health. Dr. Lingvay also highlighted that weight loss is a better target for patients than remission of their diabetes because remission may no longer be possible in patients with longstanding type 2 diabetes.

The review divides patients with type 2 diabetes into three subgroups: those with adiposity-related disease, which includes about 40%-70% of patients with type 2 diabetes; patients with cardiovascular disease as their most prominent comorbidity, a subgroup that includes about a third of patients with type 2 diabetes; and the remaining patients with primarily beta-cell dysfunction with a principle morbidity of hyperglycemia, comprising about 10%-20% of patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients in the adiposity-related diabetes subgroup form the primary target group for interventions focused on weight loss.

Incretin-based weight-loss agents propel change.

The review also links the timing of the new recommendations to recent evidence that treatment with relatively new medications from classes such as the GLP-1 receptor agonists can produce weight loss of at least 15% in most patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those with the adiposity-related form of the disease.

“The number of patients who can achieve and maintain weight loss with lifestyle alone is limited, and while bariatric surgery is very effective [for producing substantial weight loss], only a minority of patients have access to it,” and the necessary scalability of surgery is doubtful, said Priya Sumithran, MBBS, PhD, an endocrinologist and leader of the obesity research group at the University of Melbourne, and a coauthor on the new review. Compelling evidence now exists that the gap between lifestyle interventions and bariatric surgery can now be filled by a new generation of incretin-based agents that can safely produce substantial weight loss.

New agents that work as GLP-1 receptor agonists and on related incretin pathways “have changed how we think about treating type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay declared.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Del Prato have each been consultants to numerous drug companies. Dr. Sumithran has been an adviser to and speaker on behalf of Novo Nordisk. Dr. El Sayed, Dr. Halford, and Dr. Chambers had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

A uniquely-designed three-drug study has demonstrated that individual clinical characteristics, including patient preference, can be used to guide medication choice in type 2 diabetes.

Results from the TriMaster trial using sitagliptin, pioglitazone, and canagliflozin as second- or third-line therapy in a total of 525 patients with type 2 diabetes were presented September 29 at the virtual European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

TriMaster is a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-month crossover trial examining the effects of all three drugs in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes who hadn’t achieved target glucose levels with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea.   

While all three drugs lowered glucose similarly overall, pioglitazone did so more effectively among patients with a body mass index (BMI) above 30 kg/m², while sitagliptin worked better in those with a BMI less than 30 kg/m². However, pioglitazone resulted in more weight gain.

In a second comparison, canagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) was more effective than sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitor) in lowering glucose among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 90 mL/min/1.73m2, while sitagliptin actually lowered glucose better among individuals with an eGFR 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 than canagliflozin.

And when participants were asked which drug they preferred, the results were split nearly evenly among the three, correlating with how well the drug worked and the side effect profile for each individual.  

“We proved a precision approach worked using predefined clinical criteria to define groups of patients where one drug is better than another. This is the first-ever proof of a precision medicine approach in type 2 diabetes,” chief investigator Andrew Hattersley, DM, professor of molecular medicine at the University of Exeter, U.K., told this news organization.

But, he stressed, “These results do not mean all patients with BMI above 30 should have pioglitazone or that all patients with an eGFR 60-90 should have a DPP-4 inhibitor.”

“Drug choice will need to consider other priorities than glycemia ... Patients with heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease should be prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors,” he noted. And “some patients will need to avoid specific drugs due to likely side effects.”
 

‘Modern era’ study used older drugs

Independent commentator Caroline M. Kistorp, MD, PhD, professor of endocrinology at University Hospital Copenhagen, congratulated the investigators for “moving precision medicine from the retrospective analysis of existing data into the modern era of evidence-based medicine with this randomized clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes ... Starting this trial back in 2015 was really ahead of their time.”

However, she questioned the use of a thiazolidinedione (TZD), pioglitazone, in the trial, as they are no longer used in many parts of the world in favor of more “modern” glucose-lowering drugs.

“I’m thinking of GLP-1 receptor agonists, especially if you want to treat type 2 diabetes patients who are obese with a BMI over 30 ... I acknowledge that there is a cost issue, but I still think we should try to give our patients the best treatments, so that’s why I’m not sure how much the [TZDs] will be used in the future, even with this trial,” she said.

Dr. Kistorp also noted the trial didn’t include cardiovascular disease outcomes, for which most SGLT2 inhibitors have shown benefit.

“We have to discuss and consider whether A1c is the most important parameter for these patients ... especially looking at their cardiovascular outcomes.” 

Mr. Hattersley responded that the study was designed in 2015, prior to the landmark EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial that began the shift toward use of SGLT2 inhibitors for cardiovascular and kidney disease reduction in addition to glycemic control in the clinical management of type 2 diabetes.

“We will report the cardiovascular profiles, but it wasn’t a specific thing because at that time the evidence didn’t exist, so it wasn’t in our protocol,” he explained.  

Regarding pioglitazone, he acknowledged that although it may be an alternative to insulin for some patients, “I think for most people you won’t be considering it in clinical practice,” but because it has a very different mechanism from the other two study drugs, “it did give the greater chance of differential effects ... Partly, what we’re really trying to do is test the question of whether precision medicine exists and can we do it.”
 

Unique study design had each patient act as their own control

Trial statistician Beverley Shields, PhD, of the University of Exeter, U.K., reported the results. The 525 participants with type 2 diabetes were aged 30-79 years and had A1c levels above 58 mmol/mol (7.5%) but not greater than 110 mmol/mol (12.2%) with metformin alone or combined with a sulfonylurea. Just over half (58%) had a BMI above 30 kg/m² and 52% had an eGFR greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2.

Each participant received each of the three medications as second- or third-line oral therapy in random order – in one of six possible sequences – for 16 weeks each, with no washout period in between (to prevent dropouts due to hyperglycemia). Thus, each participant acted as their own control.

A total of 458 participants completed all three study periods.
 

The drugs work differently in different patient groups

Without stratification by patient type, there was no overall difference in A1c reduction between the three therapies, with all achieving about 59-60 mmol/mol (7.5-7.6%) from a baseline average of 69 mmol/mol (8.9%).

But when stratified by BMI, A1c was 1.48 mmol/mol higher with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 and 1.44 mmol/mol lower with pioglitazone versus sitagliptin in the group with BMI greater than 30 kg/m², giving a significant overall difference of 2.92 mmol/mol (P = .003).  

By eGFR stratification, A1c was 1.74 mmol/mol lower with sitagliptin than canagliflozin in the 60-90 mL/min/1.73m2 group and 1.08 mmol/mol higher in the greater than 90 mL/min/1.73m2 group, giving a significant difference of 2.83 mmol/mol (P = .002).

“So, if we were to treat the patients with the drug that is optimal for their strata ... this would lead to a benefit of about 3 mmol/mol compared to if those patients were treated with the other drug,” Dr. Shields said.

By BMI, there were no significant differences by drug or strata for tolerability, defined as staying on drug for at least 12 weeks (P = .2), nor in the percentage of patients reporting at least one hypoglycemic episode (P = .6).

However, pioglitazone was associated with higher weight gain in both BMI groups, resulting in a 0.93 kg difference overall (P < .001), although it was higher in the higher BMI group (1.9 vs. 0.97 kg).

Similarly, by eGFR there were no differences in tolerability or hypoglycemic episodes between sitagliptin and canagliflozin (P = .09 and P = .6, respectively). And here, there were no differences in weight (P = .6).
 

Patients compared their own experiences with each drug

Patients were asked about their drug preferences after being reminded about their own changes in A1c and weight with each one. The result was a split: 25.8% picked pioglitazone, 34.8% sitagliptin, and 38.7% canagliflozin.

Looking at study outcomes by therapy, pioglitazone had the lowest rate of nontolerability but the highest weight gain, sitagliptin had the highest nontolerability but the lowest number of side effects, while canagliflozin had the highest number of reported side effects but the lowest weight gain.  

Patients’ preferred drugs were associated with the lowest A1c and the fewest side effects for each group. Interestingly, pioglitazone was associated with the highest weight on therapy regardless of preference, so that even those who preferred pioglitazone had a higher weight than they did with the other two drugs.

In response to an audience question about durability of the results given the relatively short trial periods, Mr. Hattersley said: “We’re following up these patients who have chosen their drug, and on the whole, their primary care doctor agreed with them. So we’re following that up as a prospective cohort. We’re looking at tolerance and response and also to see if they’re still happy with that drug. That will be a future analysis.”

The TriMASTER data will be submitted for publication soon.

TriMASTER was funded by the UK Medical Research Council. Mr. Hattersley and Dr. Shields have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kistorp has reported receiving honoraria from and/or is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Otsuka Pharma, and Chiesi.

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

Adults with diabetes whose blood pressure does not drop as expected at night (nondipping), or whose BP increases during the night (reverse dipping) are at higher risk of dying than peers with normal nighttime BP patterns, a longitudinal study has shown.

“Reverse dippers have more than double the risk of death for any cause over 20 years, irrespective of blood pressure control,” study investigator Martina Chiriacò, MD, University of Pisa (Italy), said in an interview.

“Primary physicians and diabetologists should look for abnormal blood pressure dipping patterns in patients with diabetes through 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring,” she added.

Dr. Chiriacò presented the research Sept. 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Scarce data

Previous studies have shown that a nondipping BP pattern is linked to renal and cardiovascular disease, both in healthy individuals and in patients with hypertension or diabetes.

“Nevertheless, the long-term effect of nondipping on mortality in diabetes is still unclear; in particular, data on reverse dippers are extremely scarce,” Dr. Chiriacò explained.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 349 adults with diabetes (81% type 2 diabetes) who were followed for more than 2 decades as part of the CHAMPION study, all with available 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and heart rate variability monitoring.

Dipping, nondipping, and reverse dipping were defined as a decline of at least 10%, a decline of less than 10%, and an increase of at least 0.1% in average night-time systolic BP, compared with average daytime SBP, respectively.

The cohort involved 166 (47.6%) dippers, 144 (41.2%) nondippers, and 39 (11.2%) reverse dippers.

Compared with dippers, nondippers and reverse dippers showed a progressively higher prevalence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy, low heart rate variability, 24-hour hypertension, isolated nocturnal hypertension, postural hypotension, and lower prevalence of white-coat hypertension.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, 136 patients died (39%). 

Compared with dippers, reverse dippers and nondippers had an average reduction in survival of 2.5 years and 1.1 years, respectively, Dr. Chiriacò reported.

During follow-up, risk for all-cause mortality was about twofold higher for reverse dippers than for dippers (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.8; P = .003) and than for nondippers (adjusted HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .34).

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality risk between dippers and nondippers.

Notably, said Dr. Chiriacò, the one in five patients with isolated nocturnal hypertension had a reduction in survival similar to that seen in individuals with 24-hour sustained hypertension (average, 1.2 years).

Individuals with low heart rate variability over 24 hours had an average reduction in survival of 1.8 years.
 

Important underused diagnostic tool

“We believe that our study is important since it is the only available study with a follow-up longer than 20 years that explores the role of blood pressure patterns and heart rate variability as risk factors for all-cause mortality in diabetes,” Dr. Chiriacò said in an interview.

There are some available strategies to reduce BP during the night, she added. “The most tested and effective is the administration of anti-hypertensive medications in the evening rather than in the morning.”

Weighing in on the study, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Interestingly, most physicians do not do 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring when they’re making the diagnosis of hypertension.”

“And really, the correct way to make a diagnosis of hypertension and rule out white-coat hypertension is either with a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor or use of home blood pressure monitors,” she said in an interview.

“The 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor is an important diagnostic tool and a great way to really look at this issue of dipping, which is a very important physiologic parameter,” Dr. McLaughlin said.

“In our offices, we offer the 24-hour home ambulatory blood pressure monitor routinely. Most patients are receptive to it and they usually tolerate it pretty well,” Dr. McLaughlin said.

The study was funded by the University of Pisa. Dr. Chiriacò and Dr. McLaughlin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with diabetes whose blood pressure does not drop as expected at night (nondipping), or whose BP increases during the night (reverse dipping) are at higher risk of dying than peers with normal nighttime BP patterns, a longitudinal study has shown.

“Reverse dippers have more than double the risk of death for any cause over 20 years, irrespective of blood pressure control,” study investigator Martina Chiriacò, MD, University of Pisa (Italy), said in an interview.

“Primary physicians and diabetologists should look for abnormal blood pressure dipping patterns in patients with diabetes through 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring,” she added.

Dr. Chiriacò presented the research Sept. 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Scarce data

Previous studies have shown that a nondipping BP pattern is linked to renal and cardiovascular disease, both in healthy individuals and in patients with hypertension or diabetes.

“Nevertheless, the long-term effect of nondipping on mortality in diabetes is still unclear; in particular, data on reverse dippers are extremely scarce,” Dr. Chiriacò explained.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 349 adults with diabetes (81% type 2 diabetes) who were followed for more than 2 decades as part of the CHAMPION study, all with available 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and heart rate variability monitoring.

Dipping, nondipping, and reverse dipping were defined as a decline of at least 10%, a decline of less than 10%, and an increase of at least 0.1% in average night-time systolic BP, compared with average daytime SBP, respectively.

The cohort involved 166 (47.6%) dippers, 144 (41.2%) nondippers, and 39 (11.2%) reverse dippers.

Compared with dippers, nondippers and reverse dippers showed a progressively higher prevalence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy, low heart rate variability, 24-hour hypertension, isolated nocturnal hypertension, postural hypotension, and lower prevalence of white-coat hypertension.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, 136 patients died (39%). 

Compared with dippers, reverse dippers and nondippers had an average reduction in survival of 2.5 years and 1.1 years, respectively, Dr. Chiriacò reported.

During follow-up, risk for all-cause mortality was about twofold higher for reverse dippers than for dippers (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.8; P = .003) and than for nondippers (adjusted HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .34).

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality risk between dippers and nondippers.

Notably, said Dr. Chiriacò, the one in five patients with isolated nocturnal hypertension had a reduction in survival similar to that seen in individuals with 24-hour sustained hypertension (average, 1.2 years).

Individuals with low heart rate variability over 24 hours had an average reduction in survival of 1.8 years.
 

Important underused diagnostic tool

“We believe that our study is important since it is the only available study with a follow-up longer than 20 years that explores the role of blood pressure patterns and heart rate variability as risk factors for all-cause mortality in diabetes,” Dr. Chiriacò said in an interview.

There are some available strategies to reduce BP during the night, she added. “The most tested and effective is the administration of anti-hypertensive medications in the evening rather than in the morning.”

Weighing in on the study, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Interestingly, most physicians do not do 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring when they’re making the diagnosis of hypertension.”

“And really, the correct way to make a diagnosis of hypertension and rule out white-coat hypertension is either with a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor or use of home blood pressure monitors,” she said in an interview.

“The 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor is an important diagnostic tool and a great way to really look at this issue of dipping, which is a very important physiologic parameter,” Dr. McLaughlin said.

“In our offices, we offer the 24-hour home ambulatory blood pressure monitor routinely. Most patients are receptive to it and they usually tolerate it pretty well,” Dr. McLaughlin said.

The study was funded by the University of Pisa. Dr. Chiriacò and Dr. McLaughlin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with diabetes whose blood pressure does not drop as expected at night (nondipping), or whose BP increases during the night (reverse dipping) are at higher risk of dying than peers with normal nighttime BP patterns, a longitudinal study has shown.

“Reverse dippers have more than double the risk of death for any cause over 20 years, irrespective of blood pressure control,” study investigator Martina Chiriacò, MD, University of Pisa (Italy), said in an interview.

“Primary physicians and diabetologists should look for abnormal blood pressure dipping patterns in patients with diabetes through 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring,” she added.

Dr. Chiriacò presented the research Sept. 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.
 

Scarce data

Previous studies have shown that a nondipping BP pattern is linked to renal and cardiovascular disease, both in healthy individuals and in patients with hypertension or diabetes.

“Nevertheless, the long-term effect of nondipping on mortality in diabetes is still unclear; in particular, data on reverse dippers are extremely scarce,” Dr. Chiriacò explained.

To investigate, the researchers analyzed data on 349 adults with diabetes (81% type 2 diabetes) who were followed for more than 2 decades as part of the CHAMPION study, all with available 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and heart rate variability monitoring.

Dipping, nondipping, and reverse dipping were defined as a decline of at least 10%, a decline of less than 10%, and an increase of at least 0.1% in average night-time systolic BP, compared with average daytime SBP, respectively.

The cohort involved 166 (47.6%) dippers, 144 (41.2%) nondippers, and 39 (11.2%) reverse dippers.

Compared with dippers, nondippers and reverse dippers showed a progressively higher prevalence of cardiac autonomic neuropathy, low heart rate variability, 24-hour hypertension, isolated nocturnal hypertension, postural hypotension, and lower prevalence of white-coat hypertension.

During a median follow-up of 21 years, 136 patients died (39%). 

Compared with dippers, reverse dippers and nondippers had an average reduction in survival of 2.5 years and 1.1 years, respectively, Dr. Chiriacò reported.

During follow-up, risk for all-cause mortality was about twofold higher for reverse dippers than for dippers (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-3.8; P = .003) and than for nondippers (adjusted HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9; P = .34).

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality risk between dippers and nondippers.

Notably, said Dr. Chiriacò, the one in five patients with isolated nocturnal hypertension had a reduction in survival similar to that seen in individuals with 24-hour sustained hypertension (average, 1.2 years).

Individuals with low heart rate variability over 24 hours had an average reduction in survival of 1.8 years.
 

Important underused diagnostic tool

“We believe that our study is important since it is the only available study with a follow-up longer than 20 years that explores the role of blood pressure patterns and heart rate variability as risk factors for all-cause mortality in diabetes,” Dr. Chiriacò said in an interview.

There are some available strategies to reduce BP during the night, she added. “The most tested and effective is the administration of anti-hypertensive medications in the evening rather than in the morning.”

Weighing in on the study, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Interestingly, most physicians do not do 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring when they’re making the diagnosis of hypertension.”

“And really, the correct way to make a diagnosis of hypertension and rule out white-coat hypertension is either with a 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor or use of home blood pressure monitors,” she said in an interview.

“The 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitor is an important diagnostic tool and a great way to really look at this issue of dipping, which is a very important physiologic parameter,” Dr. McLaughlin said.

“In our offices, we offer the 24-hour home ambulatory blood pressure monitor routinely. Most patients are receptive to it and they usually tolerate it pretty well,” Dr. McLaughlin said.

The study was funded by the University of Pisa. Dr. Chiriacò and Dr. McLaughlin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Bone marrow derived autologous cell therapy (ACT) has been shown to significantly reduce the rate of major amputation at 5 years in people with diabetes who developed critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

In a study of 130 patients, 64% of 42 patients who were treated conservatively needed a major amputation at 5 years versus just 30% of 45 patients who had been treated with ACT (P = .011).

This compared favorably to the results seen with repeated percutaneous angioplasty (re-PTA), where just 20.9% of 43 patients underwent limb salvage (P = .002 vs. conservative therapy).

Furthermore, amputation-free survival was significantly longer in both active groups, Michal Dubský, MD, PhD, FRSPH, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Dubský, of the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Charles University in Prague, also reported that fewer patients who had undergone re-PTA or ACT than conservative treatment had died by 5 years (25.8% and 35.6%, respectively, vs. 61.9%), but that the difference was significant only for the revascularization procedure (P = .012).

Based on these findings, “we believe that autologous cell therapy seems to be an appropriate alternative to repeated PTA even for patients with no-option chronic limb-threatening ischemia,” he said.

“This is a very important area,” said Andrew J.M. Boulton, MBBS, MD, FRCP, who chaired the oral abstract presentation session during which the findings were presented.

“It is very difficult to get an evidence base from randomized studies in this area, because of the nature of the patients: They’re very sick and we all deal with them in our clinics very regularly,” added Dr. Boulton, professor of medicine within the division of diabetes, endocrinology and gastroenterology at the University of Manchester (England).

Dr. Boulton called the findings a “very important addition to what we know.”
 

New option for no-option CLTI

CLTI is associated with persistent pain at rest, ulcers, and gangrene, and can be the end result of longstanding peripheral arterial disease. Within the first year of presentation, there’s a 30% chance of having a major amputation and a 25% chance of dying.

Importantly, said Dr. Dubský, “there is a big difference in this diagnosis” between patients with diabetes and those without. For instance, CLTI is more diffuse in patients with diabetes than in those without, different arteries are affected and the sclerosis seen can be more rigid and “full of calcium.”

While surgery to improve blood flow is the standard of care, not everyone is suitable. Bypass surgery or endovascular procedures can be performed in only 40%-50% of patients, and even then a therapeutic effect may be seen in only a quarter of patients.

“We need some new therapeutic modalities for this diagnosis, and one of them could be autologous cell therapy,” said Dr. Dubský.
 

Study details

Dr. Dubský and coinvestigators consecutively recruited 130 patients with diabetic foot and CLTI who had been seen at their clinic over a 5-year period. Of these, 87 had not been eligible for standard revascularization and underwent ACT or were treated conservatively.

Of the patients who were not eligible for standard revascularization (‘no-option CLTI), 45 had undergone ACT and 42 had been treated conservatively. Dr. Dubský acknowledged that “his study was not prospective and randomized.”

All patients in the study had at least one unsuccessful revascularization procedure and diabetic foot ulcers, and low tissue oxygenation. The latter was defined as transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO₂) of below 30 mm Hg.

There were little differences in demographic characteristics between the treatment groups, the average age ranged from 62 to 67 years, there were more men (70%-80%) than women; most patients (90%) had type 2 diabetes for at least 20 years. There were similar rates of ischemic heart disease, hypertension, dialysis, and immunosuppressive therapy.

There were no differences in baseline values of TcPO₂ between the groups, and similar improvements were seen in both the ACT and re-PTA groups versus conservative group.
 

ACT in practice

With such promising results, what about the practicalities of harvesting a patient’s bone marrow to make the ACT?

“Bone marrow harvesting usually takes about 20 minutes,” Dr. Dubský said. It then takes another 45 minutes to separate the cells and make the cell suspension, and then maybe another 10 minutes or so to administer this to the patient, which is done by injecting into the calf muscles and small muscles of the foot, aided by computed tomography. The whole process may take up to 2 hours, he said.

“Patients are under local or general anesthesia, so there is no pain during the procedure,” Dr. Dubský reassured. “Afterwards we sometimes see small hematoma[s], with low-intensity pain that responds well to usual analgesic therapy.”

Computed tomography was used to help guide the injections, which was advantageous, Dr. Boulton pointed out, because it was “less invasive than angioplasty in these very sick people with very distal lesions, many of whom already have renal problems.”

“It is surprising though, that everybody had re-PTA and not one had vascular surgery,” he suggested. Dr. Boulton added, however: “These are very important observations; they help us a lot in an area where there’s unlikely to be a full RCT.”

The next step in this research is to see if combining ACT and re-PTA could lead to even better results.

The study was funded by the Czech Republic Ministry of Health. Dr. Dubský had nothing to disclose. Dr. Boulton made no statement about his conflicts of interest.

Bone marrow derived autologous cell therapy (ACT) has been shown to significantly reduce the rate of major amputation at 5 years in people with diabetes who developed critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

In a study of 130 patients, 64% of 42 patients who were treated conservatively needed a major amputation at 5 years versus just 30% of 45 patients who had been treated with ACT (P = .011).

This compared favorably to the results seen with repeated percutaneous angioplasty (re-PTA), where just 20.9% of 43 patients underwent limb salvage (P = .002 vs. conservative therapy).

Furthermore, amputation-free survival was significantly longer in both active groups, Michal Dubský, MD, PhD, FRSPH, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Dubský, of the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Charles University in Prague, also reported that fewer patients who had undergone re-PTA or ACT than conservative treatment had died by 5 years (25.8% and 35.6%, respectively, vs. 61.9%), but that the difference was significant only for the revascularization procedure (P = .012).

Based on these findings, “we believe that autologous cell therapy seems to be an appropriate alternative to repeated PTA even for patients with no-option chronic limb-threatening ischemia,” he said.

“This is a very important area,” said Andrew J.M. Boulton, MBBS, MD, FRCP, who chaired the oral abstract presentation session during which the findings were presented.

“It is very difficult to get an evidence base from randomized studies in this area, because of the nature of the patients: They’re very sick and we all deal with them in our clinics very regularly,” added Dr. Boulton, professor of medicine within the division of diabetes, endocrinology and gastroenterology at the University of Manchester (England).

Dr. Boulton called the findings a “very important addition to what we know.”
 

New option for no-option CLTI

CLTI is associated with persistent pain at rest, ulcers, and gangrene, and can be the end result of longstanding peripheral arterial disease. Within the first year of presentation, there’s a 30% chance of having a major amputation and a 25% chance of dying.

Importantly, said Dr. Dubský, “there is a big difference in this diagnosis” between patients with diabetes and those without. For instance, CLTI is more diffuse in patients with diabetes than in those without, different arteries are affected and the sclerosis seen can be more rigid and “full of calcium.”

While surgery to improve blood flow is the standard of care, not everyone is suitable. Bypass surgery or endovascular procedures can be performed in only 40%-50% of patients, and even then a therapeutic effect may be seen in only a quarter of patients.

“We need some new therapeutic modalities for this diagnosis, and one of them could be autologous cell therapy,” said Dr. Dubský.
 

Study details

Dr. Dubský and coinvestigators consecutively recruited 130 patients with diabetic foot and CLTI who had been seen at their clinic over a 5-year period. Of these, 87 had not been eligible for standard revascularization and underwent ACT or were treated conservatively.

Of the patients who were not eligible for standard revascularization (‘no-option CLTI), 45 had undergone ACT and 42 had been treated conservatively. Dr. Dubský acknowledged that “his study was not prospective and randomized.”

All patients in the study had at least one unsuccessful revascularization procedure and diabetic foot ulcers, and low tissue oxygenation. The latter was defined as transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO₂) of below 30 mm Hg.

There were little differences in demographic characteristics between the treatment groups, the average age ranged from 62 to 67 years, there were more men (70%-80%) than women; most patients (90%) had type 2 diabetes for at least 20 years. There were similar rates of ischemic heart disease, hypertension, dialysis, and immunosuppressive therapy.

There were no differences in baseline values of TcPO₂ between the groups, and similar improvements were seen in both the ACT and re-PTA groups versus conservative group.
 

ACT in practice

With such promising results, what about the practicalities of harvesting a patient’s bone marrow to make the ACT?

“Bone marrow harvesting usually takes about 20 minutes,” Dr. Dubský said. It then takes another 45 minutes to separate the cells and make the cell suspension, and then maybe another 10 minutes or so to administer this to the patient, which is done by injecting into the calf muscles and small muscles of the foot, aided by computed tomography. The whole process may take up to 2 hours, he said.

“Patients are under local or general anesthesia, so there is no pain during the procedure,” Dr. Dubský reassured. “Afterwards we sometimes see small hematoma[s], with low-intensity pain that responds well to usual analgesic therapy.”

Computed tomography was used to help guide the injections, which was advantageous, Dr. Boulton pointed out, because it was “less invasive than angioplasty in these very sick people with very distal lesions, many of whom already have renal problems.”

“It is surprising though, that everybody had re-PTA and not one had vascular surgery,” he suggested. Dr. Boulton added, however: “These are very important observations; they help us a lot in an area where there’s unlikely to be a full RCT.”

The next step in this research is to see if combining ACT and re-PTA could lead to even better results.

The study was funded by the Czech Republic Ministry of Health. Dr. Dubský had nothing to disclose. Dr. Boulton made no statement about his conflicts of interest.

Bone marrow derived autologous cell therapy (ACT) has been shown to significantly reduce the rate of major amputation at 5 years in people with diabetes who developed critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).

In a study of 130 patients, 64% of 42 patients who were treated conservatively needed a major amputation at 5 years versus just 30% of 45 patients who had been treated with ACT (P = .011).

This compared favorably to the results seen with repeated percutaneous angioplasty (re-PTA), where just 20.9% of 43 patients underwent limb salvage (P = .002 vs. conservative therapy).

Furthermore, amputation-free survival was significantly longer in both active groups, Michal Dubský, MD, PhD, FRSPH, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Dr. Dubský, of the Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine and Charles University in Prague, also reported that fewer patients who had undergone re-PTA or ACT than conservative treatment had died by 5 years (25.8% and 35.6%, respectively, vs. 61.9%), but that the difference was significant only for the revascularization procedure (P = .012).

Based on these findings, “we believe that autologous cell therapy seems to be an appropriate alternative to repeated PTA even for patients with no-option chronic limb-threatening ischemia,” he said.

“This is a very important area,” said Andrew J.M. Boulton, MBBS, MD, FRCP, who chaired the oral abstract presentation session during which the findings were presented.

“It is very difficult to get an evidence base from randomized studies in this area, because of the nature of the patients: They’re very sick and we all deal with them in our clinics very regularly,” added Dr. Boulton, professor of medicine within the division of diabetes, endocrinology and gastroenterology at the University of Manchester (England).

Dr. Boulton called the findings a “very important addition to what we know.”
 

New option for no-option CLTI

CLTI is associated with persistent pain at rest, ulcers, and gangrene, and can be the end result of longstanding peripheral arterial disease. Within the first year of presentation, there’s a 30% chance of having a major amputation and a 25% chance of dying.

Importantly, said Dr. Dubský, “there is a big difference in this diagnosis” between patients with diabetes and those without. For instance, CLTI is more diffuse in patients with diabetes than in those without, different arteries are affected and the sclerosis seen can be more rigid and “full of calcium.”

While surgery to improve blood flow is the standard of care, not everyone is suitable. Bypass surgery or endovascular procedures can be performed in only 40%-50% of patients, and even then a therapeutic effect may be seen in only a quarter of patients.

“We need some new therapeutic modalities for this diagnosis, and one of them could be autologous cell therapy,” said Dr. Dubský.
 

Study details

Dr. Dubský and coinvestigators consecutively recruited 130 patients with diabetic foot and CLTI who had been seen at their clinic over a 5-year period. Of these, 87 had not been eligible for standard revascularization and underwent ACT or were treated conservatively.

Of the patients who were not eligible for standard revascularization (‘no-option CLTI), 45 had undergone ACT and 42 had been treated conservatively. Dr. Dubský acknowledged that “his study was not prospective and randomized.”

All patients in the study had at least one unsuccessful revascularization procedure and diabetic foot ulcers, and low tissue oxygenation. The latter was defined as transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO₂) of below 30 mm Hg.

There were little differences in demographic characteristics between the treatment groups, the average age ranged from 62 to 67 years, there were more men (70%-80%) than women; most patients (90%) had type 2 diabetes for at least 20 years. There were similar rates of ischemic heart disease, hypertension, dialysis, and immunosuppressive therapy.

There were no differences in baseline values of TcPO₂ between the groups, and similar improvements were seen in both the ACT and re-PTA groups versus conservative group.
 

ACT in practice

With such promising results, what about the practicalities of harvesting a patient’s bone marrow to make the ACT?

“Bone marrow harvesting usually takes about 20 minutes,” Dr. Dubský said. It then takes another 45 minutes to separate the cells and make the cell suspension, and then maybe another 10 minutes or so to administer this to the patient, which is done by injecting into the calf muscles and small muscles of the foot, aided by computed tomography. The whole process may take up to 2 hours, he said.

“Patients are under local or general anesthesia, so there is no pain during the procedure,” Dr. Dubský reassured. “Afterwards we sometimes see small hematoma[s], with low-intensity pain that responds well to usual analgesic therapy.”

Computed tomography was used to help guide the injections, which was advantageous, Dr. Boulton pointed out, because it was “less invasive than angioplasty in these very sick people with very distal lesions, many of whom already have renal problems.”

“It is surprising though, that everybody had re-PTA and not one had vascular surgery,” he suggested. Dr. Boulton added, however: “These are very important observations; they help us a lot in an area where there’s unlikely to be a full RCT.”

The next step in this research is to see if combining ACT and re-PTA could lead to even better results.

The study was funded by the Czech Republic Ministry of Health. Dr. Dubský had nothing to disclose. Dr. Boulton made no statement about his conflicts of interest.

Men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by the age of 40 years appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy than men who are diagnosed at an older age, Norwegian researchers report.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

In a cross-sectional study of about 10,000 people, men with young-onset T2D were 72% more likely than men aged 50 years or older to have retinopathy.

While an increased retinopathy risk was also seen in women with young-onset T2D versus older women at first, this difference was not significant after adjusting for various confounding factors.

The effect of young-onset diabetes on retinopathy seems to be gender specific, Katrina Tibballs, MD, of the department of general practice at the University of Oslo, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“In the unadjusted analysis, the odds ratio for retinopathy was substantially higher in both [young-onset] men [odds ratio, 3.0] and women [OR, 2.46], compared with those 50 or older at diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Tibballs said.

That relationship was not substantially altered after adjustment for variables such as level of education, country background, gender, and body mass index, with adjusted ORs of 2.56 and 2.55 for men and women, respectively.

However, further adjustment to include current age, duration of diabetes, and blood lipids and glycated hemoglobin levels, led to the difference no longer holding for women (OR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.89) as it did for men (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29).
 

First data in Norwegian population

Cross-sectional data on more than 10,000 people with T2D were used for the analysis. These came from the ROSA4 study, a general practice study conducted across Norway in 2014.
 

Just over 10% of the study population used in the analysis was under the age of 40 years at diagnosis of T2D; 21% were aged between 40 and 49 years, and 69% were at least 50 years old.

The mean age of those with young-onset T2D, defined as a diagnosis before the age of 40 years, was 33 years. These individuals had a longer disease duration than those in the other age groups (11.4 vs. 10.0 vs. 7.8 years).

“Looking at clinical characteristics, we say that individuals [with young-onset T2D] have a higher level of hemoglobin A1c than those with diabetes onset later in life,” Dr. Tibballs said.

“This is despite a substantially higher proportion [being] treated with insulin and fewer on lifestyle interventions alone.”

Gender differences were seen in A1c levels, with men with young-onset T2D having consistently higher levels than women, with levels increasing with diabetes duration.
 

Rise in retinopathy faster in men than in women

Dr. Tibballs reported that, not only did the prevalence of retinopathy rise faster in those of a younger age, but it also rose more quickly in men with young-onset T2D than it in their female counterparts.

“Comparing that [young-onset diabetes] and later-onset diabetes in men and women separately, we see a clearly higher prevalence of retinopathy with increasing diabetes duration for [young-onset] men,” she said.

In women, on the other hand, there was “no clear indication of a higher retinopathy prevalence in [young-onset diabetes], except in those with the longest diabetes duration.”

So, what do the results mean for practice? First, they confirm prior work showing that there is a strong association between retinopathy and age at diagnosis of T2D. Second, they suggest that this is despite intensive glucose-lowering treatment.

She speculated that men with young-onset T2D may have had a delayed diagnosis when compared with women and individuals with later onset diabetes, Dr. Tibballs said.

“This may in turn lead to delayed onset of glucose-lowering treatment, allowing for more time with high glycemic exposure and increased risk of acquiring complications, such as retinopathy at the time of diagnosis, or in the first years after,” said Dr. Tibballs.

These are cross-sectional data, “so we can’t say anything about whether this treatment is sufficient, but it is obviously not reducing HbA1c levels as much as we would like” added Dr. Tibballs, who is a primary care physician and PhD student.

The study was supported by The Norwegian Research Fund for General Practice. Dr. Tibballs had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by the age of 40 years appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy than men who are diagnosed at an older age, Norwegian researchers report.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

In a cross-sectional study of about 10,000 people, men with young-onset T2D were 72% more likely than men aged 50 years or older to have retinopathy.

While an increased retinopathy risk was also seen in women with young-onset T2D versus older women at first, this difference was not significant after adjusting for various confounding factors.

The effect of young-onset diabetes on retinopathy seems to be gender specific, Katrina Tibballs, MD, of the department of general practice at the University of Oslo, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“In the unadjusted analysis, the odds ratio for retinopathy was substantially higher in both [young-onset] men [odds ratio, 3.0] and women [OR, 2.46], compared with those 50 or older at diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Tibballs said.

That relationship was not substantially altered after adjustment for variables such as level of education, country background, gender, and body mass index, with adjusted ORs of 2.56 and 2.55 for men and women, respectively.

However, further adjustment to include current age, duration of diabetes, and blood lipids and glycated hemoglobin levels, led to the difference no longer holding for women (OR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.89) as it did for men (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29).
 

First data in Norwegian population

Cross-sectional data on more than 10,000 people with T2D were used for the analysis. These came from the ROSA4 study, a general practice study conducted across Norway in 2014.
 

Just over 10% of the study population used in the analysis was under the age of 40 years at diagnosis of T2D; 21% were aged between 40 and 49 years, and 69% were at least 50 years old.

The mean age of those with young-onset T2D, defined as a diagnosis before the age of 40 years, was 33 years. These individuals had a longer disease duration than those in the other age groups (11.4 vs. 10.0 vs. 7.8 years).

“Looking at clinical characteristics, we say that individuals [with young-onset T2D] have a higher level of hemoglobin A1c than those with diabetes onset later in life,” Dr. Tibballs said.

“This is despite a substantially higher proportion [being] treated with insulin and fewer on lifestyle interventions alone.”

Gender differences were seen in A1c levels, with men with young-onset T2D having consistently higher levels than women, with levels increasing with diabetes duration.
 

Rise in retinopathy faster in men than in women

Dr. Tibballs reported that, not only did the prevalence of retinopathy rise faster in those of a younger age, but it also rose more quickly in men with young-onset T2D than it in their female counterparts.

“Comparing that [young-onset diabetes] and later-onset diabetes in men and women separately, we see a clearly higher prevalence of retinopathy with increasing diabetes duration for [young-onset] men,” she said.

In women, on the other hand, there was “no clear indication of a higher retinopathy prevalence in [young-onset diabetes], except in those with the longest diabetes duration.”

So, what do the results mean for practice? First, they confirm prior work showing that there is a strong association between retinopathy and age at diagnosis of T2D. Second, they suggest that this is despite intensive glucose-lowering treatment.

She speculated that men with young-onset T2D may have had a delayed diagnosis when compared with women and individuals with later onset diabetes, Dr. Tibballs said.

“This may in turn lead to delayed onset of glucose-lowering treatment, allowing for more time with high glycemic exposure and increased risk of acquiring complications, such as retinopathy at the time of diagnosis, or in the first years after,” said Dr. Tibballs.

These are cross-sectional data, “so we can’t say anything about whether this treatment is sufficient, but it is obviously not reducing HbA1c levels as much as we would like” added Dr. Tibballs, who is a primary care physician and PhD student.

The study was supported by The Norwegian Research Fund for General Practice. Dr. Tibballs had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by the age of 40 years appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy than men who are diagnosed at an older age, Norwegian researchers report.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

In a cross-sectional study of about 10,000 people, men with young-onset T2D were 72% more likely than men aged 50 years or older to have retinopathy.

While an increased retinopathy risk was also seen in women with young-onset T2D versus older women at first, this difference was not significant after adjusting for various confounding factors.

The effect of young-onset diabetes on retinopathy seems to be gender specific, Katrina Tibballs, MD, of the department of general practice at the University of Oslo, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“In the unadjusted analysis, the odds ratio for retinopathy was substantially higher in both [young-onset] men [odds ratio, 3.0] and women [OR, 2.46], compared with those 50 or older at diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Tibballs said.

That relationship was not substantially altered after adjustment for variables such as level of education, country background, gender, and body mass index, with adjusted ORs of 2.56 and 2.55 for men and women, respectively.

However, further adjustment to include current age, duration of diabetes, and blood lipids and glycated hemoglobin levels, led to the difference no longer holding for women (OR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.89) as it did for men (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29).
 

First data in Norwegian population

Cross-sectional data on more than 10,000 people with T2D were used for the analysis. These came from the ROSA4 study, a general practice study conducted across Norway in 2014.
 

Just over 10% of the study population used in the analysis was under the age of 40 years at diagnosis of T2D; 21% were aged between 40 and 49 years, and 69% were at least 50 years old.

The mean age of those with young-onset T2D, defined as a diagnosis before the age of 40 years, was 33 years. These individuals had a longer disease duration than those in the other age groups (11.4 vs. 10.0 vs. 7.8 years).

“Looking at clinical characteristics, we say that individuals [with young-onset T2D] have a higher level of hemoglobin A1c than those with diabetes onset later in life,” Dr. Tibballs said.

“This is despite a substantially higher proportion [being] treated with insulin and fewer on lifestyle interventions alone.”

Gender differences were seen in A1c levels, with men with young-onset T2D having consistently higher levels than women, with levels increasing with diabetes duration.
 

Rise in retinopathy faster in men than in women

Dr. Tibballs reported that, not only did the prevalence of retinopathy rise faster in those of a younger age, but it also rose more quickly in men with young-onset T2D than it in their female counterparts.

“Comparing that [young-onset diabetes] and later-onset diabetes in men and women separately, we see a clearly higher prevalence of retinopathy with increasing diabetes duration for [young-onset] men,” she said.

In women, on the other hand, there was “no clear indication of a higher retinopathy prevalence in [young-onset diabetes], except in those with the longest diabetes duration.”

So, what do the results mean for practice? First, they confirm prior work showing that there is a strong association between retinopathy and age at diagnosis of T2D. Second, they suggest that this is despite intensive glucose-lowering treatment.

She speculated that men with young-onset T2D may have had a delayed diagnosis when compared with women and individuals with later onset diabetes, Dr. Tibballs said.

“This may in turn lead to delayed onset of glucose-lowering treatment, allowing for more time with high glycemic exposure and increased risk of acquiring complications, such as retinopathy at the time of diagnosis, or in the first years after,” said Dr. Tibballs.

These are cross-sectional data, “so we can’t say anything about whether this treatment is sufficient, but it is obviously not reducing HbA1c levels as much as we would like” added Dr. Tibballs, who is a primary care physician and PhD student.

The study was supported by The Norwegian Research Fund for General Practice. Dr. Tibballs had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

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

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

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

A nationwide, retrospective, case-control study of older adults in Denmark suggests that the bisphosphonate alendronate that is widely used to treat osteoporosis may protect against new-onset type 2 diabetes. But these preliminary findings need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial, experts said.

The registry study showed that from 2008 to 2018, among individuals in Denmark age 50 and older (with a mean age of 67), those who were taking alendronate were 36% less likely to have new-onset type 2 diabetes than age- and sex-matched individuals who were not taking the drug, after controlling for multiple risk factors.

The results also suggest that longer alendronate use and higher compliance might be more protective.

Rikke Viggers, MD, a PhD student in the department of clinical medicine, Aalborg (Denmark) University, presented the findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Excitingly, our research suggests that alendronate, an inexpensive medicine widely used to treat osteoporosis, may also protect against type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Viggers summarized in a press release issued by the EASD.

“Type 2 diabetes is a serious lifelong condition that can lead to other serious health issues such as stroke, heart disease, blindness, and limb amputation,” she noted, “and anything that prevents or even delays it will also reduce a person’s risk of all these other conditions.”

“We believe that doctors should consider this when prescribing osteoporosis drugs to those with prediabetes or at high risk of type 2 diabetes,” she added.
 

Preliminary results, need for RCT

However, these are preliminary results, Dr. Viggers cautioned during the oral presentation and in an email. “This is a registry-based study,” she stressed, “and we cannot conclude causality.”

“We do not know if this effect [of decreased risk of developing diabetes among people taking alendronate] is ‘real’ and what the mechanisms are.”

“It could be a direct effect on peripheral tissues, for example, muscle and adipose tissue,” Dr. Viggers speculated, “or an indirect effect through bone metabolites that may impact glucose metabolism.”

The group is now conducting a randomized controlled trial in patients with diabetes and osteopenia or osteoporosis to examine the relationship between alendronate and insulin sensitivity, bone indices, and glycemic control.

They also aim to investigate whether alendronate is the optimal antiosteoporotic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary results suggest that other bisphosphonates have similar effects.

“Alendronate decreases bone turnover and may not be beneficial in healthy bones,” Dr. Viggers noted. “However, as far as I know, potential other side effects have not been tested in healthy bones,” so further research is needed.

Current registry study findings

Glucose homeostasis has been linked to bone metabolism, Dr. Viggers said, and bisphosphonates were associated with increased insulin sensitivity and decreased risk of diabetes risk in two registry studies from Denmark and Taiwan.

The researchers aimed to investigate if the risk of developing type 2 diabetes was altered by previous use of alendronate.

Using data from the national Danish Patient Registry, they identified 163,588 individuals age 50 and older newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2008-2018.

They matched each patient with three individuals of the same gender and age range who did not have diabetes, for a total of 490,764 controls.

Roughly two-thirds of participants were in their 50s or 60s, a quarter were in their 70s, and 10% were 80 or older. About half of participants were women (45%).

Compared to the patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes, the control participants were healthier: they were less likely to have obesity (6% vs. 17%) and had a lower mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (0.38 vs. 0.88).

Using data from the national Danish Health Service Prescription Registry, the researchers identified individuals who filled prescriptions for alendronate in 2008-2018.

After controlling for heavy smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, pancreatitis, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, glucocorticoid use, marital status, household income, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, people taking alendronate were less likely to have new-onset diabetes than those not taking this drug (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.66).

The odds of developing type 2 diabetes were even lower among those who took alendronate for 8 years or more versus never-users (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.40-0.56), after controlling for the same variables.

Session Chair Zhila Semnani-Azad, a PhD student in nutritional science, University of Toronto, wanted to know if the researchers accounted for physical activity and vitamin D use. Dr. Viggers replied that the registries did not have this information.

The study was funded by a Steno Collaborative Project grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Denmark. Dr. Viggers has disclosed receiving a grant from the foundation. Dr. Vega has disclosed serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson.

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

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2021;326:736-743. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.12531
2. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(suppl 1):S15-S33. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S002

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2021;326:736-743. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.12531
2. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(suppl 1):S15-S33. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S002

REFERENCES

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2021;326:736-743. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.12531
2. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(suppl 1):S15-S33. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-S002

Both high C-reactive protein (CRP) and older age predict mortality from COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, new research suggests.

The data, from the retrospective ACCREDIT cohort study, were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD 2021) by Daniel Kevin Llanera, MD.

The combination of older age and high levels of the inflammatory marker CRP were linked to a tripled risk for death by day 7 after hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with diabetes. But, in contrast to other studies, recent A1c and body mass index did not predict COVID-19 outcomes.

“Both of these variables are easily available upon admission to hospital,” Dr. Llanera, who now works at Imperial College, London, said in an EASD press release.

“This means we can easily identify patients early on in their hospital stay who will likely require more aggressive interventions to try and improve survival.”

“It makes sense that CRP and age are important,” said Simon Heller, MB BChir, DM, of the University of Sheffield, England. “It may be that diabetes alone overwhelmed the additional effects of obesity and A1c.

“Certainly in other studies, age was the overwhelming bad prognostic sign among people with diabetes, and perhaps long-term diabetes has effects on the immune system which we haven’t yet identified.”
 

Kidney disease in younger patients also linked to poorer outcomes

The study, conducted when Dr. Llanera worked for the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, involved 1,004 patients with diabetes admitted with COVID-19 to seven hospitals in northwest England from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2020. The patients were a mean age of 74.1 years, 60.7% were male, and 45% were in the most deprived quintile based on the U.K. government deprivation index. Overall, 56.2% had macrovascular complications and 49.6% had microvascular complications.

They had a median BMI of 27.6 kg/m², which is lower than that reported in previous studies and might explain the difference, Dr. Llanera noted.

The primary outcome, death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 24%. By day 30, 33% had died. These rates are higher than the rate found in previous studies, possibly because of greater socioeconomic deprivation and older age of the population, Dr. Llanera speculated.

A total of 7.5% of patients received intensive care by day 7 and 9.8% required intravenous insulin infusions.

On univariate analysis, insulin infusion was found to be protective, with those receiving it half as likely to die as those who didn’t need IV insulin (odds ratio [OR], 0.5).

In contrast, chronic kidney disease in people younger than 70 years increased the risk of death more than twofold (OR, 2.74), as did type 2 diabetes compared with other diabetes types (OR, 2.52).

As in previous studies, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers were not associated with COVID-19 outcomes, nor was the presence of diabetes-related complications.

In multivariate analysis, CRP and age emerged as the most significant predictors of the primary outcome, with those deemed high risk by a logistic regression model having an OR of 3.44 for death by day 7 compared with those at lower risk based on the two factors.

Data for glycemic control during the time of hospitalization weren’t available for this study, Dr. Llanera said in response to a question.

“We didn’t look into glycemic control during admission, just at entry, so I can’t answer whether strict glucose control is of benefit. I think it’s worth exploring further whether the use of IV insulin may be of benefit.”

Dr. Llanera also pointed out that people with diabetic kidney disease are in a chronic proinflammatory state and have immune dysregulation, thus potentially hindering their ability to “fight off” the virus.

“In addition, ACE2 receptors are upregulated in the kidneys of patients with diabetic kidney disease. These are molecules that facilitate entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cells. This may lead to direct attack of the kidneys by the virus, possibly leading to worse overall outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Llanera has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heller has reported serving as consultant or speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Mannkind, Zealand, MSD, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Both high C-reactive protein (CRP) and older age predict mortality from COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, new research suggests.

The data, from the retrospective ACCREDIT cohort study, were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD 2021) by Daniel Kevin Llanera, MD.

The combination of older age and high levels of the inflammatory marker CRP were linked to a tripled risk for death by day 7 after hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with diabetes. But, in contrast to other studies, recent A1c and body mass index did not predict COVID-19 outcomes.

“Both of these variables are easily available upon admission to hospital,” Dr. Llanera, who now works at Imperial College, London, said in an EASD press release.

“This means we can easily identify patients early on in their hospital stay who will likely require more aggressive interventions to try and improve survival.”

“It makes sense that CRP and age are important,” said Simon Heller, MB BChir, DM, of the University of Sheffield, England. “It may be that diabetes alone overwhelmed the additional effects of obesity and A1c.

“Certainly in other studies, age was the overwhelming bad prognostic sign among people with diabetes, and perhaps long-term diabetes has effects on the immune system which we haven’t yet identified.”
 

Kidney disease in younger patients also linked to poorer outcomes

The study, conducted when Dr. Llanera worked for the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, involved 1,004 patients with diabetes admitted with COVID-19 to seven hospitals in northwest England from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2020. The patients were a mean age of 74.1 years, 60.7% were male, and 45% were in the most deprived quintile based on the U.K. government deprivation index. Overall, 56.2% had macrovascular complications and 49.6% had microvascular complications.

They had a median BMI of 27.6 kg/m², which is lower than that reported in previous studies and might explain the difference, Dr. Llanera noted.

The primary outcome, death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 24%. By day 30, 33% had died. These rates are higher than the rate found in previous studies, possibly because of greater socioeconomic deprivation and older age of the population, Dr. Llanera speculated.

A total of 7.5% of patients received intensive care by day 7 and 9.8% required intravenous insulin infusions.

On univariate analysis, insulin infusion was found to be protective, with those receiving it half as likely to die as those who didn’t need IV insulin (odds ratio [OR], 0.5).

In contrast, chronic kidney disease in people younger than 70 years increased the risk of death more than twofold (OR, 2.74), as did type 2 diabetes compared with other diabetes types (OR, 2.52).

As in previous studies, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers were not associated with COVID-19 outcomes, nor was the presence of diabetes-related complications.

In multivariate analysis, CRP and age emerged as the most significant predictors of the primary outcome, with those deemed high risk by a logistic regression model having an OR of 3.44 for death by day 7 compared with those at lower risk based on the two factors.

Data for glycemic control during the time of hospitalization weren’t available for this study, Dr. Llanera said in response to a question.

“We didn’t look into glycemic control during admission, just at entry, so I can’t answer whether strict glucose control is of benefit. I think it’s worth exploring further whether the use of IV insulin may be of benefit.”

Dr. Llanera also pointed out that people with diabetic kidney disease are in a chronic proinflammatory state and have immune dysregulation, thus potentially hindering their ability to “fight off” the virus.

“In addition, ACE2 receptors are upregulated in the kidneys of patients with diabetic kidney disease. These are molecules that facilitate entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cells. This may lead to direct attack of the kidneys by the virus, possibly leading to worse overall outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Llanera has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heller has reported serving as consultant or speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Mannkind, Zealand, MSD, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Both high C-reactive protein (CRP) and older age predict mortality from COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, new research suggests.

The data, from the retrospective ACCREDIT cohort study, were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD 2021) by Daniel Kevin Llanera, MD.

The combination of older age and high levels of the inflammatory marker CRP were linked to a tripled risk for death by day 7 after hospitalization for COVID-19 among people with diabetes. But, in contrast to other studies, recent A1c and body mass index did not predict COVID-19 outcomes.

“Both of these variables are easily available upon admission to hospital,” Dr. Llanera, who now works at Imperial College, London, said in an EASD press release.

“This means we can easily identify patients early on in their hospital stay who will likely require more aggressive interventions to try and improve survival.”

“It makes sense that CRP and age are important,” said Simon Heller, MB BChir, DM, of the University of Sheffield, England. “It may be that diabetes alone overwhelmed the additional effects of obesity and A1c.

“Certainly in other studies, age was the overwhelming bad prognostic sign among people with diabetes, and perhaps long-term diabetes has effects on the immune system which we haven’t yet identified.”
 

Kidney disease in younger patients also linked to poorer outcomes

The study, conducted when Dr. Llanera worked for the Countess of Chester NHS Foundation Trust, involved 1,004 patients with diabetes admitted with COVID-19 to seven hospitals in northwest England from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2020. The patients were a mean age of 74.1 years, 60.7% were male, and 45% were in the most deprived quintile based on the U.K. government deprivation index. Overall, 56.2% had macrovascular complications and 49.6% had microvascular complications.

They had a median BMI of 27.6 kg/m², which is lower than that reported in previous studies and might explain the difference, Dr. Llanera noted.

The primary outcome, death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 24%. By day 30, 33% had died. These rates are higher than the rate found in previous studies, possibly because of greater socioeconomic deprivation and older age of the population, Dr. Llanera speculated.

A total of 7.5% of patients received intensive care by day 7 and 9.8% required intravenous insulin infusions.

On univariate analysis, insulin infusion was found to be protective, with those receiving it half as likely to die as those who didn’t need IV insulin (odds ratio [OR], 0.5).

In contrast, chronic kidney disease in people younger than 70 years increased the risk of death more than twofold (OR, 2.74), as did type 2 diabetes compared with other diabetes types (OR, 2.52).

As in previous studies, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers were not associated with COVID-19 outcomes, nor was the presence of diabetes-related complications.

In multivariate analysis, CRP and age emerged as the most significant predictors of the primary outcome, with those deemed high risk by a logistic regression model having an OR of 3.44 for death by day 7 compared with those at lower risk based on the two factors.

Data for glycemic control during the time of hospitalization weren’t available for this study, Dr. Llanera said in response to a question.

“We didn’t look into glycemic control during admission, just at entry, so I can’t answer whether strict glucose control is of benefit. I think it’s worth exploring further whether the use of IV insulin may be of benefit.”

Dr. Llanera also pointed out that people with diabetic kidney disease are in a chronic proinflammatory state and have immune dysregulation, thus potentially hindering their ability to “fight off” the virus.

“In addition, ACE2 receptors are upregulated in the kidneys of patients with diabetic kidney disease. These are molecules that facilitate entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cells. This may lead to direct attack of the kidneys by the virus, possibly leading to worse overall outcomes,” he said.

Dr. Llanera has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heller has reported serving as consultant or speaker for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Mannkind, Zealand, MSD, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

Among those with type 2 diabetes, women receive some cardioprotective treatments less often than men, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the REWIND trial, conducted in nearly 10,000 adults from 24 countries.

At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
 

Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”

“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.

Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.

The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.

“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.

REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.

But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
 

Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline

The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.

“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
 

A role for geography, or selection bias?

The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.

“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.

There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.

Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”

The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”

REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among those with type 2 diabetes, women receive some cardioprotective treatments less often than men, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the REWIND trial, conducted in nearly 10,000 adults from 24 countries.

At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
 

Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”

“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.

Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.

The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.

“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.

REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.

But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
 

Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline

The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.

“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
 

A role for geography, or selection bias?

The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.

“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.

There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.

Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”

The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”

REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among those with type 2 diabetes, women receive some cardioprotective treatments less often than men, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the REWIND trial, conducted in nearly 10,000 adults from 24 countries.

At study entry, significantly fewer women received a statin, at 73%, or daily aspirin, at 44%, compared with men, who had treatment rates of 81% and 58%, respectively, Giulia Ferrannini, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The data also show that significantly fewer women received treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), at 80%, than men, at 83%, although the absolute between-group difference was modest. Rates of a fourth metric of appropriate treatment, receipt of antihypertensive medications if systolic blood pressure was at least 130 mm Hg, were nearly identical among women and men.
 

Cardiovascular risk in women “less well managed”

“This is confirmation that women are less well managed than men when it comes to cardiovascular risk, especially if they have [type 2] diabetes,” Dr. Ferrannini said in an interview.

Similar observations have been documented before, including in a report in 2019.

The treatment disparity by sex among the 9901 women and men with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND is particularly striking because in clinical trials “patients are generally better managed than in the real world,” Dr. Ferrannini noted. “Despite this, the pattern of disadvantage to women was still evident,” she added.

“In cardiovascular protection the gender issue is preponderant. Women are less well treated,” she said.

REWIND is the cardiovascular outcomes trial for the once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist dulaglutide (Trulicity, Lilly) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The primary results, reported at the 2019 scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet, showed dulaglutide significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 12%, compared with placebo. The study ran at about 300 centers worldwide, including many U.S. and Canadian sites, and 46% of enrolled patients were women.

But despite undertreatment, women had significantly better outcomes in terms of MACE, the primary endpoint, during a median 5.4 years of follow-up compared with men. After adjustment for sex, other baseline characteristics, and study-treatment assignment, women had a significant 27% lower composite rate of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from either cardiovascular or unknown causes, compared with men, said Dr. Ferrannini, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The analysis by sex also showed that women had a significant outcome advantage, compared with men, for three of the four components of the combined MACE outcome: nonfatal MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, as well as for the outcome of hospitalization for heart failure, which was not part of the composite MACE outcome. The only MACE outcome component that showed no significant between-group difference was nonfatal stroke, which had roughly equal incidence rates among women and men.
 

Women had half the prevalence of CVD at baseline

The results also showed that the women with type 2 diabetes enrolled in REWIND had a prevalence of existing cardiovascular disease of 20%, which was half the rate of men at study entry, at 41%. However, the between-sex differences in the primary outcome, as well as each of the individual cardiovascular disease outcomes, didn’t change based on whether or not patients had a history of cardiovascular disease at baseline.

Only one outcome showed a between-sex difference linked to prevalent cardiovascular disease at study entry, the rate of all-cause mortality, which was not significantly different between men and women with a history of cardiovascular disease, but was 39% lower in women compared with men without such a history.

“The good news is that, at baseline and after 2 years, the majority of participants were meeting the relevant treatment targets regardless of sex,” commented Peter Novodvorsky, MUDr, a diabetes researcher at the University of Sheffield (England), who chaired the session during which Dr. Ferrannini presented her findings.
 

A role for geography, or selection bias?

The new analyses did not examine whether the overall pattern of undertreatment of women differed among each of the 24 participating countries, or by region of the world.

“We have to assume that these results reflect current [routine] practice” in the 24 countries that contributed patients to the trial, noted Dr. Novodvorsky.

There is also “the well-known issue of selection bias” in randomized trials. The current findings raise the question of whether the women willing to take part in the trial somehow differed from the men, he suggested.

Dr. Ferrannini added: “Even if we do observe a gender difference in management, if the majority of women with type 2 diabetes are appropriately treated, this ‘restores’ their cardiovascular risk advantage, compared with men, with the exception of stroke.”

The main hypothesis generated by the post hoc analysis of REWIND is that “women with diabetes have better outcomes than men if they are treated properly,” she stressed, noting that this “would have to be tested in a trial designed to ascertain gender differences.”

REWIND was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Ferrannini has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Time-restricted eating – where caloric intake is restricted within a consistent interval of less than 12 hours without overtly attempting to reduce calories – has “generated impressive [animal] data in preventing or reversing metabolic diseases associated with obesity,” and “more rigorous human studies are needed,” conclude the authors of a new review.

“Time-restricted eating is an easy-to-follow and effective dietary strategy that requires less mental math than counting calories,” said senior author Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Panda Lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif.

It “can improve sleep and a person’s quality of life as well as reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” he noted in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“People who are trying to lose weight and live a healthier lifestyle should pay more attention to when they eat as well as what they eat,” Dr. Panda advised.

Moreover, “eating at random times breaks the synchrony of our internal program [circadian clock] and make us prone to diseases,” so it is important to eat at consistent times.

Furthermore, time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, “is a lifestyle that anyone can adopt,” he noted, which “can help eliminate health disparities and lets everyone live a healthy and fulfilling life.”

The article, by Emily N. Manoogian, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same lab, and colleagues was published online Sept. 22 in Endocrine Reviews.

The authors suggest that health care providers should encourage high-risk patients (such as those with obesity) to monitor their eating and sleeping times and make easy-to-implement behavior changes, such as decreasing after-dinner snacking and going to bed at the same time each day.
 

Animal experiments, early studies in humans

In animal experiments, time-restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevented or attenuated the severity of metabolic diseases including obesity, glucose intolerance, hepatic steatosis, dyslipidemia, and age-related decline in cardiac function, Dr. Manoogian and colleagues report.

In pilot human studies, time-restricted eating with or without explicit calorie reduction was associated with reductions in body weight, glucose intolerance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

Most studies did not restrict calories or provide dietary recommendations, yet participants commonly reduced their caloric intake by 7%-22%.
 

39 published clinical trials, many upcoming ones

The authors identified 39 clinical trials of time-restricted eating, which were mostly published in the past 2 years, with the earliest one published in 2013.

Most studies were short and small (4-12 weeks, 10-20 participants) and were of people with obesity, healthy adults, and athletes. Most of the trials had an 8- to 10-hour daily “eating window.”

Body weight decreased in 24 of 39 studies, and “importantly,” time-restricted eating was feasible and safe in all studies, the authors note.

“Larger randomized controlled trials are needed as many of the studies to date are smaller pre-post or crossover trials,” Dr. Manoogian and colleagues summarize. “Yet, the replication of findings, even in diverse patient populations, speaks to the potential impact of [time-restricted eating] as a health intervention.”

The many ongoing international clinical trials of time-restricted eating that are listed on clinicaltrials.gov should improve our understanding of time-restricted eating, they add.

Some of the larger trials are in participants with prediabetes (344 participants, NCT03504683), diabetes (144 participants, NCT04155619), metabolic syndrome (118 participants, NCT04057339), and firefighters on 24-hour shifts (150 participants, NCT03533023). There are also smaller pilot studies in participants with cancer (NCT04243512) and polycystic ovary syndrome (NCT03792282).
 

Be consistent; do not eat within 3 hours of bedtime

In the meantime, the review authors offer several tips:

• Because high melatonin levels (late at night or early morning) can inhibit proper response to food, choose a time to eat that starts at least an hour after waking and stops at least 3 hours before bedtime. If you sleep 8 hours, that leaves 12 hours for the time-restricted eating window.
• Try to eat within the same time window each day.
• Some research suggests eating earlier in the eating phase is better than eating later.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the Larry l. Hillblom Foundation, the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dr. Panda has reported receiving royalties from his book, The Circadian Code. The other authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Time-restricted eating – where caloric intake is restricted within a consistent interval of less than 12 hours without overtly attempting to reduce calories – has “generated impressive [animal] data in preventing or reversing metabolic diseases associated with obesity,” and “more rigorous human studies are needed,” conclude the authors of a new review.

“Time-restricted eating is an easy-to-follow and effective dietary strategy that requires less mental math than counting calories,” said senior author Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Panda Lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif.

It “can improve sleep and a person’s quality of life as well as reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” he noted in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“People who are trying to lose weight and live a healthier lifestyle should pay more attention to when they eat as well as what they eat,” Dr. Panda advised.

Moreover, “eating at random times breaks the synchrony of our internal program [circadian clock] and make us prone to diseases,” so it is important to eat at consistent times.

Furthermore, time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, “is a lifestyle that anyone can adopt,” he noted, which “can help eliminate health disparities and lets everyone live a healthy and fulfilling life.”

The article, by Emily N. Manoogian, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same lab, and colleagues was published online Sept. 22 in Endocrine Reviews.

The authors suggest that health care providers should encourage high-risk patients (such as those with obesity) to monitor their eating and sleeping times and make easy-to-implement behavior changes, such as decreasing after-dinner snacking and going to bed at the same time each day.
 

Animal experiments, early studies in humans

In animal experiments, time-restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevented or attenuated the severity of metabolic diseases including obesity, glucose intolerance, hepatic steatosis, dyslipidemia, and age-related decline in cardiac function, Dr. Manoogian and colleagues report.

In pilot human studies, time-restricted eating with or without explicit calorie reduction was associated with reductions in body weight, glucose intolerance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

Most studies did not restrict calories or provide dietary recommendations, yet participants commonly reduced their caloric intake by 7%-22%.
 

39 published clinical trials, many upcoming ones

The authors identified 39 clinical trials of time-restricted eating, which were mostly published in the past 2 years, with the earliest one published in 2013.

Most studies were short and small (4-12 weeks, 10-20 participants) and were of people with obesity, healthy adults, and athletes. Most of the trials had an 8- to 10-hour daily “eating window.”

Body weight decreased in 24 of 39 studies, and “importantly,” time-restricted eating was feasible and safe in all studies, the authors note.

“Larger randomized controlled trials are needed as many of the studies to date are smaller pre-post or crossover trials,” Dr. Manoogian and colleagues summarize. “Yet, the replication of findings, even in diverse patient populations, speaks to the potential impact of [time-restricted eating] as a health intervention.”

The many ongoing international clinical trials of time-restricted eating that are listed on clinicaltrials.gov should improve our understanding of time-restricted eating, they add.

Some of the larger trials are in participants with prediabetes (344 participants, NCT03504683), diabetes (144 participants, NCT04155619), metabolic syndrome (118 participants, NCT04057339), and firefighters on 24-hour shifts (150 participants, NCT03533023). There are also smaller pilot studies in participants with cancer (NCT04243512) and polycystic ovary syndrome (NCT03792282).
 

Be consistent; do not eat within 3 hours of bedtime

In the meantime, the review authors offer several tips:

• Because high melatonin levels (late at night or early morning) can inhibit proper response to food, choose a time to eat that starts at least an hour after waking and stops at least 3 hours before bedtime. If you sleep 8 hours, that leaves 12 hours for the time-restricted eating window.
• Try to eat within the same time window each day.
• Some research suggests eating earlier in the eating phase is better than eating later.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the Larry l. Hillblom Foundation, the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dr. Panda has reported receiving royalties from his book, The Circadian Code. The other authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Time-restricted eating – where caloric intake is restricted within a consistent interval of less than 12 hours without overtly attempting to reduce calories – has “generated impressive [animal] data in preventing or reversing metabolic diseases associated with obesity,” and “more rigorous human studies are needed,” conclude the authors of a new review.

“Time-restricted eating is an easy-to-follow and effective dietary strategy that requires less mental math than counting calories,” said senior author Satchidananda Panda, PhD, of the Panda Lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, Calif.

It “can improve sleep and a person’s quality of life as well as reduce the risk of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” he noted in a press release from the Endocrine Society.

“People who are trying to lose weight and live a healthier lifestyle should pay more attention to when they eat as well as what they eat,” Dr. Panda advised.

Moreover, “eating at random times breaks the synchrony of our internal program [circadian clock] and make us prone to diseases,” so it is important to eat at consistent times.

Furthermore, time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, “is a lifestyle that anyone can adopt,” he noted, which “can help eliminate health disparities and lets everyone live a healthy and fulfilling life.”

The article, by Emily N. Manoogian, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the same lab, and colleagues was published online Sept. 22 in Endocrine Reviews.

The authors suggest that health care providers should encourage high-risk patients (such as those with obesity) to monitor their eating and sleeping times and make easy-to-implement behavior changes, such as decreasing after-dinner snacking and going to bed at the same time each day.
 

Animal experiments, early studies in humans

In animal experiments, time-restricted feeding without reducing caloric intake prevented or attenuated the severity of metabolic diseases including obesity, glucose intolerance, hepatic steatosis, dyslipidemia, and age-related decline in cardiac function, Dr. Manoogian and colleagues report.

In pilot human studies, time-restricted eating with or without explicit calorie reduction was associated with reductions in body weight, glucose intolerance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

Most studies did not restrict calories or provide dietary recommendations, yet participants commonly reduced their caloric intake by 7%-22%.
 

39 published clinical trials, many upcoming ones

The authors identified 39 clinical trials of time-restricted eating, which were mostly published in the past 2 years, with the earliest one published in 2013.

Most studies were short and small (4-12 weeks, 10-20 participants) and were of people with obesity, healthy adults, and athletes. Most of the trials had an 8- to 10-hour daily “eating window.”

Body weight decreased in 24 of 39 studies, and “importantly,” time-restricted eating was feasible and safe in all studies, the authors note.

“Larger randomized controlled trials are needed as many of the studies to date are smaller pre-post or crossover trials,” Dr. Manoogian and colleagues summarize. “Yet, the replication of findings, even in diverse patient populations, speaks to the potential impact of [time-restricted eating] as a health intervention.”

The many ongoing international clinical trials of time-restricted eating that are listed on clinicaltrials.gov should improve our understanding of time-restricted eating, they add.

Some of the larger trials are in participants with prediabetes (344 participants, NCT03504683), diabetes (144 participants, NCT04155619), metabolic syndrome (118 participants, NCT04057339), and firefighters on 24-hour shifts (150 participants, NCT03533023). There are also smaller pilot studies in participants with cancer (NCT04243512) and polycystic ovary syndrome (NCT03792282).
 

Be consistent; do not eat within 3 hours of bedtime

In the meantime, the review authors offer several tips:

• Because high melatonin levels (late at night or early morning) can inhibit proper response to food, choose a time to eat that starts at least an hour after waking and stops at least 3 hours before bedtime. If you sleep 8 hours, that leaves 12 hours for the time-restricted eating window.
• Try to eat within the same time window each day.
• Some research suggests eating earlier in the eating phase is better than eating later.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the Larry l. Hillblom Foundation, the Wu Tsai Human Performance Alliance, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dr. Panda has reported receiving royalties from his book, The Circadian Code. The other authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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