Type 2 Diabetes ICYMI

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Findings from a recent study indicate that the less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high co-pays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more they adhere to taking these medications.

The study, led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from University of Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Patient data from Clinformatics Data Mart, a health insurance claims database, was analyzed for the study. The information for 90,041 adults from the United States who had commercial and Medicare health insurance, and who started taking a GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor between 2014 and 2020 was reviewed. Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.

The primary outcome showed patients with a lower drug co-pay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher co-pay. These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.

After full adjustments were made and after the 12 months, patients with a high co-pay of $50 per month or more were 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a co-pay of less than $10 per month for these agents.

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including the inability to exclude residual confounding, uncertain generalizability for those without health insurance or with public insurance and possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities. Additionally, this study did not have information on patients’ preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence, and could not assess how co-payments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, or other factors including possible price inflation.

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an adviser to several drug companies including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

Findings from a recent study indicate that the less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high co-pays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more they adhere to taking these medications.

The study, led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from University of Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Patient data from Clinformatics Data Mart, a health insurance claims database, was analyzed for the study. The information for 90,041 adults from the United States who had commercial and Medicare health insurance, and who started taking a GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor between 2014 and 2020 was reviewed. Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.

The primary outcome showed patients with a lower drug co-pay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher co-pay. These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.

After full adjustments were made and after the 12 months, patients with a high co-pay of $50 per month or more were 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a co-pay of less than $10 per month for these agents.

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including the inability to exclude residual confounding, uncertain generalizability for those without health insurance or with public insurance and possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities. Additionally, this study did not have information on patients’ preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence, and could not assess how co-payments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, or other factors including possible price inflation.

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an adviser to several drug companies including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

Findings from a recent study indicate that the less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high co-pays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more they adhere to taking these medications.

The study, led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from University of Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Patient data from Clinformatics Data Mart, a health insurance claims database, was analyzed for the study. The information for 90,041 adults from the United States who had commercial and Medicare health insurance, and who started taking a GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor between 2014 and 2020 was reviewed. Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.

The primary outcome showed patients with a lower drug co-pay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher co-pay. These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.

After full adjustments were made and after the 12 months, patients with a high co-pay of $50 per month or more were 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a co-pay of less than $10 per month for these agents.

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including the inability to exclude residual confounding, uncertain generalizability for those without health insurance or with public insurance and possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities. Additionally, this study did not have information on patients’ preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence, and could not assess how co-payments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, or other factors including possible price inflation.

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an adviser to several drug companies including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

A smartphone-based app designed to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to adults with type 2 diabetes received marketing approval as a class II medical device from the Food and Drug Administration on July 10, becoming the first digital behavioral therapeutic device for people with diabetes to receive this designation for U.S. patients.
 

Better Therapeutics representatives said that the app, formerly known as BT-001, will be called AspyreRX, with U.S. sales planned to launch in October-December 2023.

The app will be available to patients exclusively by prescription, with a planned 90-day use duration and an option for a second 90-day prescription. A company official said the price per prescription will be about $500-800, although this is not yet finalized. The app is intended for use in concert with the conventional pillars of glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes: lifestyle modification and treatment with antidiabetes medications.

Senior staff members of Better Therapeutics acknowledged the critical need for an education program, which they will now launch for clinicians, payers, and patients to get across the message of the potential benefit and safety associated with using the CBT app. Their initial marketing will target patients with type 2 diabetes and poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c levels in five to six U.S. regions with high numbers of these patients. The company will also attempt to make the app available through the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and try to secure coverage by Medicare and commercial health-insurance providers.
 

Approval based on pivotal trial results

The FDA approval focused on data collected in the BT-001 randomized, controlled trial, which included 669 U.S. adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Results, published in 2022 in Diabetes Care, showed that after 90 days, people using the app had an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.39 percentage points, compared with control patients who didn’t use the app, the primary endpoint. Use of the app also appeared safe.

Subsequent meeting presentations of study findings showed that A1c-lowering linked with app use was durable during continued use for a total of 180 days, that the effectiveness of the app in helping to lower A1c levels was “dose dependent” relative to the number of lessons a person completed, and that using the app significantly linked with a reduced need for intensified glycemic control through added medications.

Another finding of the extended-use phase of the study was that 81% of patients assigned to the app-using group continued to regularly use the app after 180 days, a level of durable engagement by patients that “exceeded our expectations,” said Diane Gomez-Thinnes, chief commercial officer of Better Therapeutics, during a press conference.

The company plans to tweak the app prior to its launch based on additional analyses of results from the pivotal study to further improve patient engagement and app ease of use. The company is also planning to expand the range of smartphones that can support the app, although about 90%-95% of U.S. smartphones have this capability.

Better Therapeutics is also actively developing and testing other modifications to the basic CBT app to make it usable by people with other cardiometabolic disorders such as hypertension, obesity, and fatty liver disease.

The BT-001 study was funded by Better Therapeutics.

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

A smartphone-based app designed to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to adults with type 2 diabetes received marketing approval as a class II medical device from the Food and Drug Administration on July 10, becoming the first digital behavioral therapeutic device for people with diabetes to receive this designation for U.S. patients.
 

Better Therapeutics representatives said that the app, formerly known as BT-001, will be called AspyreRX, with U.S. sales planned to launch in October-December 2023.

The app will be available to patients exclusively by prescription, with a planned 90-day use duration and an option for a second 90-day prescription. A company official said the price per prescription will be about $500-800, although this is not yet finalized. The app is intended for use in concert with the conventional pillars of glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes: lifestyle modification and treatment with antidiabetes medications.

Senior staff members of Better Therapeutics acknowledged the critical need for an education program, which they will now launch for clinicians, payers, and patients to get across the message of the potential benefit and safety associated with using the CBT app. Their initial marketing will target patients with type 2 diabetes and poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c levels in five to six U.S. regions with high numbers of these patients. The company will also attempt to make the app available through the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and try to secure coverage by Medicare and commercial health-insurance providers.
 

Approval based on pivotal trial results

The FDA approval focused on data collected in the BT-001 randomized, controlled trial, which included 669 U.S. adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Results, published in 2022 in Diabetes Care, showed that after 90 days, people using the app had an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.39 percentage points, compared with control patients who didn’t use the app, the primary endpoint. Use of the app also appeared safe.

Subsequent meeting presentations of study findings showed that A1c-lowering linked with app use was durable during continued use for a total of 180 days, that the effectiveness of the app in helping to lower A1c levels was “dose dependent” relative to the number of lessons a person completed, and that using the app significantly linked with a reduced need for intensified glycemic control through added medications.

Another finding of the extended-use phase of the study was that 81% of patients assigned to the app-using group continued to regularly use the app after 180 days, a level of durable engagement by patients that “exceeded our expectations,” said Diane Gomez-Thinnes, chief commercial officer of Better Therapeutics, during a press conference.

The company plans to tweak the app prior to its launch based on additional analyses of results from the pivotal study to further improve patient engagement and app ease of use. The company is also planning to expand the range of smartphones that can support the app, although about 90%-95% of U.S. smartphones have this capability.

Better Therapeutics is also actively developing and testing other modifications to the basic CBT app to make it usable by people with other cardiometabolic disorders such as hypertension, obesity, and fatty liver disease.

The BT-001 study was funded by Better Therapeutics.

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

A smartphone-based app designed to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to adults with type 2 diabetes received marketing approval as a class II medical device from the Food and Drug Administration on July 10, becoming the first digital behavioral therapeutic device for people with diabetes to receive this designation for U.S. patients.
 

Better Therapeutics representatives said that the app, formerly known as BT-001, will be called AspyreRX, with U.S. sales planned to launch in October-December 2023.

The app will be available to patients exclusively by prescription, with a planned 90-day use duration and an option for a second 90-day prescription. A company official said the price per prescription will be about $500-800, although this is not yet finalized. The app is intended for use in concert with the conventional pillars of glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes: lifestyle modification and treatment with antidiabetes medications.

Senior staff members of Better Therapeutics acknowledged the critical need for an education program, which they will now launch for clinicians, payers, and patients to get across the message of the potential benefit and safety associated with using the CBT app. Their initial marketing will target patients with type 2 diabetes and poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c levels in five to six U.S. regions with high numbers of these patients. The company will also attempt to make the app available through the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and try to secure coverage by Medicare and commercial health-insurance providers.
 

Approval based on pivotal trial results

The FDA approval focused on data collected in the BT-001 randomized, controlled trial, which included 669 U.S. adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Results, published in 2022 in Diabetes Care, showed that after 90 days, people using the app had an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.39 percentage points, compared with control patients who didn’t use the app, the primary endpoint. Use of the app also appeared safe.

Subsequent meeting presentations of study findings showed that A1c-lowering linked with app use was durable during continued use for a total of 180 days, that the effectiveness of the app in helping to lower A1c levels was “dose dependent” relative to the number of lessons a person completed, and that using the app significantly linked with a reduced need for intensified glycemic control through added medications.

Another finding of the extended-use phase of the study was that 81% of patients assigned to the app-using group continued to regularly use the app after 180 days, a level of durable engagement by patients that “exceeded our expectations,” said Diane Gomez-Thinnes, chief commercial officer of Better Therapeutics, during a press conference.

The company plans to tweak the app prior to its launch based on additional analyses of results from the pivotal study to further improve patient engagement and app ease of use. The company is also planning to expand the range of smartphones that can support the app, although about 90%-95% of U.S. smartphones have this capability.

Better Therapeutics is also actively developing and testing other modifications to the basic CBT app to make it usable by people with other cardiometabolic disorders such as hypertension, obesity, and fatty liver disease.

The BT-001 study was funded by Better Therapeutics.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec provided superior glucose control, compared with the once-daily basal insulins degludec and glargine in type 2 diabetes, results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.

“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”

Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”

However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”

The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.

Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.

Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.    

Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
 

Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?

One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.

Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.

In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.

Better glycemic control, with fewer injections

ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.

The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.

Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).

ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).

There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.

Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).  

The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.

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

SAN DIEGO – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec provided superior glucose control, compared with the once-daily basal insulins degludec and glargine in type 2 diabetes, results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.

“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”

Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”

However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”

The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.

Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.

Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.    

Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
 

Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?

One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.

Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.

In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.

Better glycemic control, with fewer injections

ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.

The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.

Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).

ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).

There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.

Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).  

The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.

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

SAN DIEGO – The investigational once-weekly insulin icodec provided superior glucose control, compared with the once-daily basal insulins degludec and glargine in type 2 diabetes, results from two new phase 3a studies suggest.

Data from Novo Nordisk’s ONWARDS 1, comparing once-weekly icodec with once-daily glargine, and ONWARDS 3, comparing once-weekly icodec with daily degludec (Tresiba, Novo Nordisk), both in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

In both trials, primary endpoints of superiority and noninferiority in A1c reduction were achieved, and in ONWARDS 1, patients spent more time in target blood glucose range.

“I feel that weekly insulins have the potential to become transformational as preferred options for basal insulin replacement in people with type 2 diabetes in need of initiation of insulin therapy,” said Julio Rosenstock, MD, the lead author of ONWARDS 1.

Asked to comment, independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, said: “The data certainly support approval of Icodec.”

Dr. Alexander said that an ideal candidate for once-weekly insulin “is someone who’s already on once-weekly [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist]. Then, taking your GLP-1 [agonist] and your basal insulin at the same time once a week makes a lot of sense ... Since they’re taking a weekly injection anyway, it’s relatively easy for a person to remember ‘When I take my weekly GLP-1 [agonist], I’ll take my weekly basal insulin.’ ”

However, he also pointed out: “Payers may say they don’t care about the convenience of once-weekly and they prefer to pay for the cheaper daily basal [insulin] ... I think a lot of people will continue to use [insulin] glargine because it is cheaper than either degludec or icodec.”

The data from ONWARDS 1 was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the data from ONWARDS 3 was published in JAMA.

Six ONWARDS trials make up Novo Nordisk’s phase 3a clinical development program comparing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec with once-daily basal insulin comparators.

Previously, findings from ONWARDS 2, in which patients with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin had improved A1c after being switched to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.    

Insulin icodec has been submitted for regulatory review in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil, with decisions anticipated starting in the first half of 2024.
 

Hypoglycemia: Is the slight increase clinically significant?

One concern about the once-weekly insulins is that they might result in higher rates of hypoglycemia because they stay active in the body for so long.

Differences in rates of combined level 2 (clinically significant) and level 3 (severe) hypoglycemia were increased with borderline significance in ONWARDS 1.

In ONWARDS 3 there was a threefold significant difference, but the overall risk was still low, equating to one episode per patient per 3 years, said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is lead author for ONWARDS 1 and a co-author for ONWARDS 3.

Better glycemic control, with fewer injections

ONWARDS 1 was a 78-week, randomized, open-label, treat-to-target trial, with a main 52-week phase and a 26-week extension phase. A total of 984 patients with type 2 diabetes and A1c 7%-11% with no prior insulin treatment were randomized 1:1 to once-weekly icodec or daily insulin glargine. All baseline medications except sulfonylureas and glinides were continued.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c from baseline to week 52, and this dropped from 8.5% to 6.9% with icodec, versus 8.4% to 7.1% with glargine, a significant difference, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .02) of icodec, Dr. Rosenstock said.

The percentage of time in blood glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) was also significantly higher with icodec than glargine (71.9% vs. 66.9%; P < .001), also confirming superiority.

Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia at 83 weeks were 0.30 versus 0.16 events per person-year of exposure at week 83 (P = .043). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups.

A significantly higher proportion of participants achieved an A1c of less than 7% without clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia with once-weekly basal insulin icodec versus once-daily basal insulin glargine (52.6% vs. 42.6%).

ONWARDS 3 randomized 588 patients each to once-weekly insulin icodec plus once-weekly placebo or once-daily insulin degludec plus once-weekly placebo. The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, fell from 8.6% to 7.0% with icodec and from 8.5% to 7.2% with degludec, confirming both noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002).

There were no significant differences between the two insulins in change in fasting plasma glucose, mean weekly insulin dose, or body weight.

Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than in the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs. 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs. 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01).  

The percentage of patients achieving an A1c of less than 7% without level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia was 52.1% with icodec versus 39.9% with degludec.

Dr. Lingvay and Dr. Rosenstock have reported financial relationships with multiple companies.

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

SAN DIEGO – Children with type 2 diabetes face a strikingly high complication rate as they age into young adulthood, with an 80% incidence of at least one vascular complication during up to 15 years of follow-up, show findings from the TODAY prospective, longitudinal study of 699 U.S. children newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Arterial stiffness and worsened cardiac function often appear in these children within 2-5 years of diagnosis and seem driven in part by the development of hypertension and worsening hemoglobin A1c levels, said Rachelle G. Gandica, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Indeed, an A1c greater than 6.2% at study entry generally predicts these children will fail treatment and is a red flag, said Dr. Gandica. “I teach fellows this all the time, that if a child’s A1c is above 6.2% they will fail, and you have to watch for that,” she noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Medscape

The results from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study showed, for example, an overall cardiovascular event rate of 3.7/1,000 patient-years in a population that had just reached an average age of 26 years old, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for an average of more than 13 years.

During follow-up, there were six cases of congestive heart failure, four myocardial infarctions, four strokes, and three cases of coronary artery disease in the cohort. Hypertension ballooned from a prevalence of 19% at study entry to 68% by the end of follow-up.

Dr. Gandica called these and other findings “sobering details” that document the toll type 2 diabetes takes on children, who averaged 14 years old at the time they entered the study – when their diabetes had been diagnosed for an average of about 8 months – and then underwent an average 12.6 years of follow-up.

Investigators also found:

• After more than 12 years of type 2 diabetes, 49% of the cohort had developed diabetic retinopathy, with 3.5% having macular edema.
• Kidney damage (diabetic nephropathy) affected 8% of the cohort at entry, and then increased to a prevalence of 55% after up to 14 years of follow-up.
• Among the 452 girls who entered the study, 141 (31%) later became pregnant, with a total of 260 pregnancies. A quarter of the pregnancies resulted in preterm deliveries (43% went to term), 25% resulted in miscarriage or fetal demise, with the remaining 8% having elective terminations or unknown outcomes.
• Complications in neonates were common, including hypoglycemia (29%), respiratory disorder (19%), and cardiac issues (10%).

Dire prognosis a reason to aggressively treat these patients

It has become apparent from this and other studies in youth with type 2 diabetes that the difference in outcomes between youth and adults is stark and could indicate that type 2 diabetes in childhood or adolescence likely has a different underlying pathology and natural history, with a more aggressive disease course.

The dire prognosis is therefore a reason to aggressively treat these patients with antidiabetic medications from drug classes with proven cardiovascular disease protection, specifically sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, said Dr. Gandica, a pediatric endocrinologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“It’s fair to say we now more aggressively use [these agents] in children,” she said in an interview, and noted the very recent approval, just last week, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly) for children as young as 10 years.

“I look forward to prescribing empagliflozin to children with type 2 diabetes to lower their blood pressure and get additional cardiovascular disease benefits,” Dr. Gandica said.

Other newer type 2 diabetes medications approved for U.S. children in the past few years include the once-weekly injectable GLP-1 agonist exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older, in 2021, and the daily injectable GLP-1 agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019.
 

A1c spike heralds treatment failure: ‘Watch for that’

TODAY enrolled 699 children with type 2 diabetes for an average of 8 months since diagnosis at 16 U.S. sites starting in 2004. The protocol began with a run-in phase of up to 6 months, when participating children came off any preexisting antidiabetes medications and then began a metformin-only regimen to bring A1c below 8.0%. If achieved, patients were eligible to continue to randomization.

Participants were randomized to one of three treatment groups: metformin alone, metformin plus lifestyle interventions, or metformin plus rosiglitazone (Avandia, GSK). The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment failure, defined as A1c that rose back above 8.0% for at least 6 months or persistent metabolic decompensation during initial follow-up, for an average of just under 4 years.

The results showed that only metformin plus rosiglitazone significantly surpassed metformin alone for preventing treatment failure, reported in 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine

More recent reports on findings from longer-term follow-up have appeared in several journals, including the cardiovascular disease results, reported in 2021 also in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Another key finding from TODAY is the importance of A1c as a risk marker for impending treatment failure. Study findingsshow that an A1c of 6.2% or higher when children entered the study best predicted loss of glycemic control during follow-up. Also, a rise in A1c of at least 0.5 percentage points was significantly associated with loss of glycemic control within the following 3-6 months.

That’s an important message for clinicians, Dr. Gandica concluded.

TODAY and TODAY2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Gandica has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Children with type 2 diabetes face a strikingly high complication rate as they age into young adulthood, with an 80% incidence of at least one vascular complication during up to 15 years of follow-up, show findings from the TODAY prospective, longitudinal study of 699 U.S. children newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Arterial stiffness and worsened cardiac function often appear in these children within 2-5 years of diagnosis and seem driven in part by the development of hypertension and worsening hemoglobin A1c levels, said Rachelle G. Gandica, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Indeed, an A1c greater than 6.2% at study entry generally predicts these children will fail treatment and is a red flag, said Dr. Gandica. “I teach fellows this all the time, that if a child’s A1c is above 6.2% they will fail, and you have to watch for that,” she noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Medscape

The results from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study showed, for example, an overall cardiovascular event rate of 3.7/1,000 patient-years in a population that had just reached an average age of 26 years old, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for an average of more than 13 years.

During follow-up, there were six cases of congestive heart failure, four myocardial infarctions, four strokes, and three cases of coronary artery disease in the cohort. Hypertension ballooned from a prevalence of 19% at study entry to 68% by the end of follow-up.

Dr. Gandica called these and other findings “sobering details” that document the toll type 2 diabetes takes on children, who averaged 14 years old at the time they entered the study – when their diabetes had been diagnosed for an average of about 8 months – and then underwent an average 12.6 years of follow-up.

Investigators also found:

• After more than 12 years of type 2 diabetes, 49% of the cohort had developed diabetic retinopathy, with 3.5% having macular edema.
• Kidney damage (diabetic nephropathy) affected 8% of the cohort at entry, and then increased to a prevalence of 55% after up to 14 years of follow-up.
• Among the 452 girls who entered the study, 141 (31%) later became pregnant, with a total of 260 pregnancies. A quarter of the pregnancies resulted in preterm deliveries (43% went to term), 25% resulted in miscarriage or fetal demise, with the remaining 8% having elective terminations or unknown outcomes.
• Complications in neonates were common, including hypoglycemia (29%), respiratory disorder (19%), and cardiac issues (10%).

Dire prognosis a reason to aggressively treat these patients

It has become apparent from this and other studies in youth with type 2 diabetes that the difference in outcomes between youth and adults is stark and could indicate that type 2 diabetes in childhood or adolescence likely has a different underlying pathology and natural history, with a more aggressive disease course.

The dire prognosis is therefore a reason to aggressively treat these patients with antidiabetic medications from drug classes with proven cardiovascular disease protection, specifically sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, said Dr. Gandica, a pediatric endocrinologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“It’s fair to say we now more aggressively use [these agents] in children,” she said in an interview, and noted the very recent approval, just last week, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly) for children as young as 10 years.

“I look forward to prescribing empagliflozin to children with type 2 diabetes to lower their blood pressure and get additional cardiovascular disease benefits,” Dr. Gandica said.

Other newer type 2 diabetes medications approved for U.S. children in the past few years include the once-weekly injectable GLP-1 agonist exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older, in 2021, and the daily injectable GLP-1 agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019.
 

A1c spike heralds treatment failure: ‘Watch for that’

TODAY enrolled 699 children with type 2 diabetes for an average of 8 months since diagnosis at 16 U.S. sites starting in 2004. The protocol began with a run-in phase of up to 6 months, when participating children came off any preexisting antidiabetes medications and then began a metformin-only regimen to bring A1c below 8.0%. If achieved, patients were eligible to continue to randomization.

Participants were randomized to one of three treatment groups: metformin alone, metformin plus lifestyle interventions, or metformin plus rosiglitazone (Avandia, GSK). The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment failure, defined as A1c that rose back above 8.0% for at least 6 months or persistent metabolic decompensation during initial follow-up, for an average of just under 4 years.

The results showed that only metformin plus rosiglitazone significantly surpassed metformin alone for preventing treatment failure, reported in 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine

More recent reports on findings from longer-term follow-up have appeared in several journals, including the cardiovascular disease results, reported in 2021 also in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Another key finding from TODAY is the importance of A1c as a risk marker for impending treatment failure. Study findingsshow that an A1c of 6.2% or higher when children entered the study best predicted loss of glycemic control during follow-up. Also, a rise in A1c of at least 0.5 percentage points was significantly associated with loss of glycemic control within the following 3-6 months.

That’s an important message for clinicians, Dr. Gandica concluded.

TODAY and TODAY2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Gandica has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – Children with type 2 diabetes face a strikingly high complication rate as they age into young adulthood, with an 80% incidence of at least one vascular complication during up to 15 years of follow-up, show findings from the TODAY prospective, longitudinal study of 699 U.S. children newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Arterial stiffness and worsened cardiac function often appear in these children within 2-5 years of diagnosis and seem driven in part by the development of hypertension and worsening hemoglobin A1c levels, said Rachelle G. Gandica, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Indeed, an A1c greater than 6.2% at study entry generally predicts these children will fail treatment and is a red flag, said Dr. Gandica. “I teach fellows this all the time, that if a child’s A1c is above 6.2% they will fail, and you have to watch for that,” she noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Medscape

The results from the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) study showed, for example, an overall cardiovascular event rate of 3.7/1,000 patient-years in a population that had just reached an average age of 26 years old, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for an average of more than 13 years.

During follow-up, there were six cases of congestive heart failure, four myocardial infarctions, four strokes, and three cases of coronary artery disease in the cohort. Hypertension ballooned from a prevalence of 19% at study entry to 68% by the end of follow-up.

Dr. Gandica called these and other findings “sobering details” that document the toll type 2 diabetes takes on children, who averaged 14 years old at the time they entered the study – when their diabetes had been diagnosed for an average of about 8 months – and then underwent an average 12.6 years of follow-up.

Investigators also found:

• After more than 12 years of type 2 diabetes, 49% of the cohort had developed diabetic retinopathy, with 3.5% having macular edema.
• Kidney damage (diabetic nephropathy) affected 8% of the cohort at entry, and then increased to a prevalence of 55% after up to 14 years of follow-up.
• Among the 452 girls who entered the study, 141 (31%) later became pregnant, with a total of 260 pregnancies. A quarter of the pregnancies resulted in preterm deliveries (43% went to term), 25% resulted in miscarriage or fetal demise, with the remaining 8% having elective terminations or unknown outcomes.
• Complications in neonates were common, including hypoglycemia (29%), respiratory disorder (19%), and cardiac issues (10%).

Dire prognosis a reason to aggressively treat these patients

It has become apparent from this and other studies in youth with type 2 diabetes that the difference in outcomes between youth and adults is stark and could indicate that type 2 diabetes in childhood or adolescence likely has a different underlying pathology and natural history, with a more aggressive disease course.

The dire prognosis is therefore a reason to aggressively treat these patients with antidiabetic medications from drug classes with proven cardiovascular disease protection, specifically sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, said Dr. Gandica, a pediatric endocrinologist at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.

“It’s fair to say we now more aggressively use [these agents] in children,” she said in an interview, and noted the very recent approval, just last week, by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly) for children as young as 10 years.

“I look forward to prescribing empagliflozin to children with type 2 diabetes to lower their blood pressure and get additional cardiovascular disease benefits,” Dr. Gandica said.

Other newer type 2 diabetes medications approved for U.S. children in the past few years include the once-weekly injectable GLP-1 agonist exenatide extended release (Bydureon/Bydureon BCise, AstraZeneca) for children with type 2 diabetes aged 10 and older, in 2021, and the daily injectable GLP-1 agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) in 2019.
 

A1c spike heralds treatment failure: ‘Watch for that’

TODAY enrolled 699 children with type 2 diabetes for an average of 8 months since diagnosis at 16 U.S. sites starting in 2004. The protocol began with a run-in phase of up to 6 months, when participating children came off any preexisting antidiabetes medications and then began a metformin-only regimen to bring A1c below 8.0%. If achieved, patients were eligible to continue to randomization.

Participants were randomized to one of three treatment groups: metformin alone, metformin plus lifestyle interventions, or metformin plus rosiglitazone (Avandia, GSK). The primary endpoint was the incidence of treatment failure, defined as A1c that rose back above 8.0% for at least 6 months or persistent metabolic decompensation during initial follow-up, for an average of just under 4 years.

The results showed that only metformin plus rosiglitazone significantly surpassed metformin alone for preventing treatment failure, reported in 2012 in the New England Journal of Medicine

More recent reports on findings from longer-term follow-up have appeared in several journals, including the cardiovascular disease results, reported in 2021 also in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Another key finding from TODAY is the importance of A1c as a risk marker for impending treatment failure. Study findingsshow that an A1c of 6.2% or higher when children entered the study best predicted loss of glycemic control during follow-up. Also, a rise in A1c of at least 0.5 percentage points was significantly associated with loss of glycemic control within the following 3-6 months.

That’s an important message for clinicians, Dr. Gandica concluded.

TODAY and TODAY2 received no commercial funding. Dr. Gandica has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher doses of oral semaglutide than the 14-mg/day dose that is currently approved for type 2 diabetes may be additional options for patients with prediabetes or diabetes and obesity, according to the results of two new phase 3 clinical trials.

The two trials, OASIS in patients with overweight or obesity without diabetes and PIONEER PLUS in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet.

Filip K. Knop, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, presented highlights of the OASIS-1 results, and Vanita R. Aroda, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, presented key findings of PIONEER PLUS, during a press briefing prior to the ADA session.

OASIS-1 showed that “oral semaglutide 50 mg may represent an effective option for the treatment of obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” Dr. Knop summarized.

And “the PIONEER PLUS trial showed superior glycemic control and body-weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors, with higher doses of once-daily oral semaglutide (25 mg and 50 mg) compared with the currently [highest] approved 14-mg dose,” said Dr. Aroda.

Session chair Marion Pragnell, PhD, vice president of research & science at ADA, said in an interview there is a need for multiple treatment options, as different patients respond differently to individual drugs. The oral dose of semaglutide has to be higher than that approved for subcutaneous injection (as Ozempic or Wegovy) because of bioavailability, but small-molecule research is advancing such that in future lower doses of oral drugs may have the same effect as the current lower subcutaneous doses of the drug.

The oral version of semaglutide (Rybelsus) was approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg or 14 mg per day in 2019; it has not been approved for use in obesity.

Dr. Knop remarked that, in his clinical practice, about 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes prefer daily oral semaglutide and the rest prefer weekly injected semaglutide.

“Having an oral formulation of semaglutide in addition to the subcutaneous, or injectable, formula available will allow people who struggle to lose weight with diet and physical activity alone to take this effective medication in a way that best suits them,” he added.

Participants in OASIS and PIONEER PLUS were instructed to take the once-daily study drug tablet in the morning, in the fasting state, with up to half a glass of water (120 mL) at least 30 minutes before intake of any other food, beverage, or oral medication.
 

OASIS: 50-mg daily pill in adults with overweight or obesity

OASIS is, to their knowledge, “the first trial to assess the bodyweight-lowering effect of an oral GLP-1 agonist (semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day) in adults with overweight or obesity, without type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knop and colleagues wrote.

The 50-mg dose induced clinically meaningful reductions in bodyweight, with accompanying improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, consistent with results reported for subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly (Wegovy) in a similar population.

As an adjunct to diet and physical activity, oral semaglutide 50 mg led to a mean bodyweight reduction of 15.1%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group, and greater percentages of participants reaching bodyweight reduction targets of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.

Body-weight reductions were accompanied by significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, compared with placebo.

“These results indicate that oral semaglutide 50 mg could provide an effective, future option for people with overweight or obesity who would benefit from a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” they concluded.
 

PIONEER PLUS: Inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes

Reporting the PIONEER PLUS data, Dr. Aroda and colleagues said: “For people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs, higher doses (25 mg and 50 mg) of once-daily oral semaglutide provided more effective glycemic control and greater bodyweight loss than 14 mg semaglutide, without additional safety concerns.”

PIONEER PLUS is the first study to indicate that these bigger doses of semaglutide might provide a highly effective oral option to improve both glycemic control and weight loss in type 2 diabetes.

“This trial provides compelling evidence that the availability of a wider range of doses of oral semaglutide will allow for individualized dosing to the desired effect, and the ability to intensify treatment as needed,” said Dr. Aroda. “We are hopeful that these results encourage earlier effective management of type 2 diabetes and allow for broader management in the primary care setting.”

In an accompanying editorial Christina H. Sherrill, PharmD, and Andrew Y. Hwang, PharmD, write: “This expansion in dosing titration might provide clinicians with more opportunities to obtain the maximum efficacy of this oral GLP-1 agonist.”

But additional investigations “to establish whether the superior glycemic reduction seen at these higher doses translates into cardiovascular risk reduction” are needed, said Dr. Sherrill, of High Point (N.C.) University, and Dr. Hwang, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences University, Boston.

Such investigations “would further elucidate the place in therapy of high-dose oral semaglutide,” they concluded.

Dr. Aroda and colleagues agreed: “Future real-world studies will be needed to investigate the clinical impact of the availability of higher doses of oral semaglutide.”

The trials were funded by Novo Nordisk.

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

Higher doses of oral semaglutide than the 14-mg/day dose that is currently approved for type 2 diabetes may be additional options for patients with prediabetes or diabetes and obesity, according to the results of two new phase 3 clinical trials.

The two trials, OASIS in patients with overweight or obesity without diabetes and PIONEER PLUS in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet.

Filip K. Knop, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, presented highlights of the OASIS-1 results, and Vanita R. Aroda, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, presented key findings of PIONEER PLUS, during a press briefing prior to the ADA session.

OASIS-1 showed that “oral semaglutide 50 mg may represent an effective option for the treatment of obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” Dr. Knop summarized.

And “the PIONEER PLUS trial showed superior glycemic control and body-weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors, with higher doses of once-daily oral semaglutide (25 mg and 50 mg) compared with the currently [highest] approved 14-mg dose,” said Dr. Aroda.

Session chair Marion Pragnell, PhD, vice president of research & science at ADA, said in an interview there is a need for multiple treatment options, as different patients respond differently to individual drugs. The oral dose of semaglutide has to be higher than that approved for subcutaneous injection (as Ozempic or Wegovy) because of bioavailability, but small-molecule research is advancing such that in future lower doses of oral drugs may have the same effect as the current lower subcutaneous doses of the drug.

The oral version of semaglutide (Rybelsus) was approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg or 14 mg per day in 2019; it has not been approved for use in obesity.

Dr. Knop remarked that, in his clinical practice, about 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes prefer daily oral semaglutide and the rest prefer weekly injected semaglutide.

“Having an oral formulation of semaglutide in addition to the subcutaneous, or injectable, formula available will allow people who struggle to lose weight with diet and physical activity alone to take this effective medication in a way that best suits them,” he added.

Participants in OASIS and PIONEER PLUS were instructed to take the once-daily study drug tablet in the morning, in the fasting state, with up to half a glass of water (120 mL) at least 30 minutes before intake of any other food, beverage, or oral medication.
 

OASIS: 50-mg daily pill in adults with overweight or obesity

OASIS is, to their knowledge, “the first trial to assess the bodyweight-lowering effect of an oral GLP-1 agonist (semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day) in adults with overweight or obesity, without type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knop and colleagues wrote.

The 50-mg dose induced clinically meaningful reductions in bodyweight, with accompanying improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, consistent with results reported for subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly (Wegovy) in a similar population.

As an adjunct to diet and physical activity, oral semaglutide 50 mg led to a mean bodyweight reduction of 15.1%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group, and greater percentages of participants reaching bodyweight reduction targets of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.

Body-weight reductions were accompanied by significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, compared with placebo.

“These results indicate that oral semaglutide 50 mg could provide an effective, future option for people with overweight or obesity who would benefit from a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” they concluded.
 

PIONEER PLUS: Inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes

Reporting the PIONEER PLUS data, Dr. Aroda and colleagues said: “For people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs, higher doses (25 mg and 50 mg) of once-daily oral semaglutide provided more effective glycemic control and greater bodyweight loss than 14 mg semaglutide, without additional safety concerns.”

PIONEER PLUS is the first study to indicate that these bigger doses of semaglutide might provide a highly effective oral option to improve both glycemic control and weight loss in type 2 diabetes.

“This trial provides compelling evidence that the availability of a wider range of doses of oral semaglutide will allow for individualized dosing to the desired effect, and the ability to intensify treatment as needed,” said Dr. Aroda. “We are hopeful that these results encourage earlier effective management of type 2 diabetes and allow for broader management in the primary care setting.”

In an accompanying editorial Christina H. Sherrill, PharmD, and Andrew Y. Hwang, PharmD, write: “This expansion in dosing titration might provide clinicians with more opportunities to obtain the maximum efficacy of this oral GLP-1 agonist.”

But additional investigations “to establish whether the superior glycemic reduction seen at these higher doses translates into cardiovascular risk reduction” are needed, said Dr. Sherrill, of High Point (N.C.) University, and Dr. Hwang, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences University, Boston.

Such investigations “would further elucidate the place in therapy of high-dose oral semaglutide,” they concluded.

Dr. Aroda and colleagues agreed: “Future real-world studies will be needed to investigate the clinical impact of the availability of higher doses of oral semaglutide.”

The trials were funded by Novo Nordisk.

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

Higher doses of oral semaglutide than the 14-mg/day dose that is currently approved for type 2 diabetes may be additional options for patients with prediabetes or diabetes and obesity, according to the results of two new phase 3 clinical trials.

The two trials, OASIS in patients with overweight or obesity without diabetes and PIONEER PLUS in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, were presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association and simultaneously published in The Lancet.

Filip K. Knop, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, presented highlights of the OASIS-1 results, and Vanita R. Aroda, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, presented key findings of PIONEER PLUS, during a press briefing prior to the ADA session.

OASIS-1 showed that “oral semaglutide 50 mg may represent an effective option for the treatment of obesity, particularly in patients who prefer oral administration,” Dr. Knop summarized.

And “the PIONEER PLUS trial showed superior glycemic control and body-weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors, with higher doses of once-daily oral semaglutide (25 mg and 50 mg) compared with the currently [highest] approved 14-mg dose,” said Dr. Aroda.

Session chair Marion Pragnell, PhD, vice president of research & science at ADA, said in an interview there is a need for multiple treatment options, as different patients respond differently to individual drugs. The oral dose of semaglutide has to be higher than that approved for subcutaneous injection (as Ozempic or Wegovy) because of bioavailability, but small-molecule research is advancing such that in future lower doses of oral drugs may have the same effect as the current lower subcutaneous doses of the drug.

The oral version of semaglutide (Rybelsus) was approved in the United States for type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg or 14 mg per day in 2019; it has not been approved for use in obesity.

Dr. Knop remarked that, in his clinical practice, about 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes prefer daily oral semaglutide and the rest prefer weekly injected semaglutide.

“Having an oral formulation of semaglutide in addition to the subcutaneous, or injectable, formula available will allow people who struggle to lose weight with diet and physical activity alone to take this effective medication in a way that best suits them,” he added.

Participants in OASIS and PIONEER PLUS were instructed to take the once-daily study drug tablet in the morning, in the fasting state, with up to half a glass of water (120 mL) at least 30 minutes before intake of any other food, beverage, or oral medication.
 

OASIS: 50-mg daily pill in adults with overweight or obesity

OASIS is, to their knowledge, “the first trial to assess the bodyweight-lowering effect of an oral GLP-1 agonist (semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day) in adults with overweight or obesity, without type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knop and colleagues wrote.

The 50-mg dose induced clinically meaningful reductions in bodyweight, with accompanying improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, consistent with results reported for subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly (Wegovy) in a similar population.

As an adjunct to diet and physical activity, oral semaglutide 50 mg led to a mean bodyweight reduction of 15.1%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group, and greater percentages of participants reaching bodyweight reduction targets of at least 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%.

Body-weight reductions were accompanied by significant improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, compared with placebo.

“These results indicate that oral semaglutide 50 mg could provide an effective, future option for people with overweight or obesity who would benefit from a GLP-1 receptor agonist,” they concluded.
 

PIONEER PLUS: Inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes

Reporting the PIONEER PLUS data, Dr. Aroda and colleagues said: “For people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs, higher doses (25 mg and 50 mg) of once-daily oral semaglutide provided more effective glycemic control and greater bodyweight loss than 14 mg semaglutide, without additional safety concerns.”

PIONEER PLUS is the first study to indicate that these bigger doses of semaglutide might provide a highly effective oral option to improve both glycemic control and weight loss in type 2 diabetes.

“This trial provides compelling evidence that the availability of a wider range of doses of oral semaglutide will allow for individualized dosing to the desired effect, and the ability to intensify treatment as needed,” said Dr. Aroda. “We are hopeful that these results encourage earlier effective management of type 2 diabetes and allow for broader management in the primary care setting.”

In an accompanying editorial Christina H. Sherrill, PharmD, and Andrew Y. Hwang, PharmD, write: “This expansion in dosing titration might provide clinicians with more opportunities to obtain the maximum efficacy of this oral GLP-1 agonist.”

But additional investigations “to establish whether the superior glycemic reduction seen at these higher doses translates into cardiovascular risk reduction” are needed, said Dr. Sherrill, of High Point (N.C.) University, and Dr. Hwang, of Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences University, Boston.

Such investigations “would further elucidate the place in therapy of high-dose oral semaglutide,” they concluded.

Dr. Aroda and colleagues agreed: “Future real-world studies will be needed to investigate the clinical impact of the availability of higher doses of oral semaglutide.”

The trials were funded by Novo Nordisk.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – A new analysis of a large-scale trial of a novel lipid-lowering agent has shown a particularly large reduction in cardiovascular events in the primary prevention population enrolled in the study, two-thirds of whom also had type 2 diabetes, leading to calls for more attention to be paid to this group of patients.

The main results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) in a mixed secondary and primary prevention population intolerant to statins, presented in March at the 2023 joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, showed a 13% relative risk reduction in the main primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

This new analysis of the 4,206 high-risk primary prevention patients in the study – 67% of whom also had type 2 diabetes – has shown a 30% relative risk reduction in the same endpoint.

Other key endpoints were reduced to a similar or even greater extent, with the composite of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI showing a 36% relative risk reduction, and a 39% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular death and MI individually.

“These results are frankly striking,” lead investigator Steve Nissen, MD, said in an interview. 

“These are really large reductions. These results are telling us that high-risk primary prevention patients, although their absolute event rate is lower than secondary prevention patients, can have very impressive relative risk reductions in major cardiovascular events with lipid-lowering therapy,” he said.

But Dr. Nissen, chief academic officer at the Heart Vascular & Thoracic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, pointed out that this population of patients is not well treated. 

“This is the problem: Less than half of high-risk primary prevention patients in the U.S., and in virtually every other developed country, are receiving cholesterol-lowering medication. These patients tend to get ignored,” he stressed. 

Asked what advice he would give to clinicians based on the current findings, Dr. Nissen said: “If a patient is at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, particularly those with [type 2] diabetes, they need to go on a lipid-lowering drug.” 

“If patients can tolerate a statin then that should be the first choice. We know statins work, and they are now inexpensive. They are likely to give the exact same benefit as we have shown in this study with bempedoic acid, as the two drug classes work by very similar mechanisms. But if patients can’t tolerate a statin, then treat them with bempedoic acid. The bottom line is that these patients just need to be treated,” he said.
 

‘Wake-up call’

He said these new results are a “wake-up call for the medical community that we need to pay far more attention to high-risk primary prevention patients.”

Dr. Nissen does not believe the effect is specific to bempedoic acid; rather, it is more likely an effect of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. 

“This message is not about bempedoic acid, in particular. We have seen similar findings in historical studies with the statins, but that seems to have been forgotten. The message is about lowering LDL in patients who are at high risk of having a first cardiovascular event. We need to identify patients at high risk for a first cardiac event and get them on a cholesterol-lowering drug – and in most cases that will be a statin.”

Dr. Nissen presented the new analysis from the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. It was simultaneously published online in JAMA.

He pointed out that large trials of lipid-lowering therapy in the primary prevention population have not been done for many years. 

“All the contemporary trials with lipid-lowering therapy have only included secondary prevention patients and they often enroll patients after an acute coronary syndrome event.

“But for the CLEAR OUTCOMES trial, we included a significant amount of primary prevention patients – those with risk factors such as [type 2] diabetes and hypertension who are considered to be at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease,” he explained.

CLEAR OUTCOMES was a masked, randomized, trial that enrolled 13,970 statin-intolerant patients. The new analysis included 4,206 of those patients with risk factors for heart disease but without a prior cardiovascular event – the primary prevention group. The mean age of these participants was 68 years, 67% had diabetes, and 59% were women.

Treatment with bempedoic acid showed a 22% reduction in LDL-C, compared with placebo, with a reduction of 30.2 mg/dL from a mean baseline of 142.5 mg/dL. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were also reduced by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L.

Dr. Nissen told a press briefing at the ADA meeting that he believes “it’s the combination of LDL lowering and reduction in CRP that might have been the driver [for the effects we saw in the trial]. Certainly, bempedoic acid lowers both.”

And he noted the recent U.S. approval of a new low dose of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) with a broad indication for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which represents a completely new approach to treatment, specifically targeting inflammation as a driver of atherosclerosis.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that works along the same pathways as statins but does not cause muscle pain, which makes many people intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established ASCVD who require additional LDL-C lowering.
 

Greater benefit in primary prevention?

In this primary prevention group, treatment with bempedoic acid for 40 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization – which occurred in 5.3% of the treatment group versus 7.6% in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; P = .002). This represents a 30% relative risk reduction in major cardiovascular events.

Other key secondary endpoints also showed impressive reductions.

The rate of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was 6.4% in the placebo group and 4.0% with bempedoic acid (HR, 0.64; P < .001); MI occurred in 2.2% versus 1.4% (HR, 0.61), cardiovascular death in 3.1% versus 1.8% (HR, 0.61), and all-cause mortality in 5.2% versus 3.6% (HR, 0.73), respectively.

Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs. 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Dr. Nissen believed these results suggest that there may be a greater benefit of lipid lowering in high-risk primary prevention patients than in the secondary prevention population.

“It may seem paradoxical, but there is actually some history that this may be the case,” he said.

He pointed out that the JUPITER trial of rosuvastatin in 2008 was the last major primary prevention trial of a lipid-lowering agent, which was stopped early with a 44% reduction of the primary endpoint.

He noted that one of the arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention is the belief that absolute risk reductions are quite modest.

“But in this analysis, we found an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% for the primary endpoint. That’s a number needed to treat to prevent 1 event of 43. That’s pretty good,” he said.

Trying to explain why there may be more benefit in the primary prevention population, Dr. Nissen suggested that these patients may have more vulnerable plaques.

“I think high-risk primary prevention patients probably have a lot of lipid-laden plaque – some people call it ‘vulnerable’ plaque. These are softer, cholesterol-laden plaque. We know that treatment with cholesterol-lowering medication causes these plaques to shrink. The lipid core is delipidated and the plaque stabilizes,” he explained. “It may be that in secondary prevention patients to some extent the horse is already out of the barn – they have advanced disease. But primary prevention patients may have plaques that are more amenable to modification by cholesterol lowering.”

He admitted that the idea is only speculation. “But that is a potential explanation for our observations.”
 

Editorial cautious

In an accompanying editorial, also published in JAMA, Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the findings need to be interpreted with caution as they come from one of many subgroup analyses of a larger trial.

Dr. Kazi pointed out that the intervention and control survival curves separate right away, on the first day of follow-up, whereas the true effect of lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention would be expected to have a somewhat delayed onset, an observation he says supports the argument that this is a chance finding.

Dr. Kazi also reminded clinicians that bempedoic acid should not be regarded as a substitute for statins, which should remain the first-line therapy for primary prevention.

“For now, available evidence suggests that, although bempedoic acid is not a perfect substitute for a statin, it is a reasonable therapeutic choice for primary prevention of ASCVD events in high-risk, statin-intolerant patients,” he concluded.

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

SAN DIEGO – Weekly tirzepatide injections in adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity safely led to 12.8%-14.7% in-trial weight loss after 72 weeks in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.

Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.

“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’

Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial. 

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)

“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.

This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
 

Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.

Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.

“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.

But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive. 
 

Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’

Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.

“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”

“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.

SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
 

In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%

The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.

The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.

A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.

The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
 

Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia

The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.

Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.

The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.

The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.



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

SAN DIEGO – Weekly tirzepatide injections in adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity safely led to 12.8%-14.7% in-trial weight loss after 72 weeks in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.

Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.

“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’

Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial. 

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)

“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.

This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
 

Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.

Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.

“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.

But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive. 
 

Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’

Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.

“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”

“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.

SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
 

In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%

The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.

The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.

A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.

The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
 

Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia

The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.

Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.

The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.

The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.



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

SAN DIEGO – Weekly tirzepatide injections in adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity safely led to 12.8%-14.7% in-trial weight loss after 72 weeks in the SURMOUNT-2 pivotal trial, a finding that will likely lead to Food and Drug Administration approval of a new indication for weight loss for tirzepatide.

Tirzepatide received FDA approval as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in adults, marketed as Mounjaro, in 2022. The agent – a “twincretin” that acts as an agonist at both the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor – had also previously scored a decisive win for weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes in the SURMOUNT-1 pivotal trial.

Taken together, results from SURMOUNT-1 and SURMOUNT-2 appear to make a good case for a weight-loss indication that will not depend on whether a patient also has type 2 diabetes.

“We anticipate that tirzepatide will be [FDA] approved for weight loss later this year,” W. Timothy Garvey, MD, lead researcher for SURMOUNT-2, said during a press briefing at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Tirzepatide ‘fills the gap’

Tirzepatide “fills the gap to get [medication-driven] weight loss in the range of 15% of baseline weight or better,” Dr. Garvey noted, which puts it in a favorable position relative to a 2.4-mg weekly subcutaneous injection with the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Wegovy), which produced an average weight loss from baseline of about 9.6% in people with type 2 diabetes in the STEP-2 trial. 

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Although tirzepatide has not been compared head-to-head for weight loss with any of the several available GLP-1 agonists, the reported weight-loss numbers seem to favor tirzepatide, said Dr. Garvey, director of the Diabetes Research Center of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“If you look at the degree of weight loss across trials, we see a clinically significant difference in weight loss” compared with semaglutide and other agents that only act on the GLP-1 receptor, he noted. (Although cross-trial comparisons of different medications often have uncertain reliability.)

“The data suggest an incremental effect from tirzepatide” compared with the GLP-1 agonists now approved for weight loss, said Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president, research and science, ADA, who was not involved in the tirzepatide studies.

This is a “step forward for treating people with obesity and type 2 diabetes; it’s a very promising treatment option,” Dr. Pragnell said in an interview.
 

Tirzepatide the ‘most effective agent’

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, the designated discussant for the SURMOUNT-2 presentation at the meeting, fully agreed. The new findings “confirm that tirzepatide is the most effective agent currently on the [U.S.] market to help achieve the two coprimary goals for patients with type 2 diabetes – weight loss and glycemic control – while also having favorable effects on cardiovascular risk factors,” said Dr. Lingvay, an endocrinologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved with the SURMOUNT studies.

Dr. Lingvay offered as evidence the performance of tirzepatide’s main rival for weight loss semaglutide (Wegovy), delivered at the 2.4 mg/week subcutaneous injected dosage approved for weight loss. The semaglutide trial that SURMOUNT-2 most resembles is the STEP-2 trial, she said, which showed as its primary outcome a 9.6% average weight loss from baseline after 68 weeks of weekly semaglutide that compares, in a cross-trial way, with the 14.7% average drop from baseline weight with 15 mg tirzepatide weekly for 72 weeks and an average 12.8% weight loss with a weekly 10-mg tirzepatide dose.

“It’s fair to say that tirzepatide has an edge,” despite the limitations of cross-trial comparisons, Dr. Lingvay said in an interview.

But she acknowledged that superior weight loss efficacy takes a back seat in U.S. practice to access and affordability when making a prescribing decision for individual patients as these newer drugs are all expensive. 
 

Affordability and access will remain a ‘big problem’

Dr. Garvey, too, cautioned that access and affordability of tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists remains a major sticking point.

“These medications are very expensive – more than $1,000 a dose – and this cost limits access ... [which is] a big problem,” Dr. Garvey noted. U.S. health care payers “do not want to open the gates [to expensive treatments] for a disorder that’s as common as obesity.”

“Access and affordability are always an issue for these medications,” agreed Janet Brown-Friday, RN, president, health care and education, ADA, who had no role in the tirzepatide studies.

SURMOUNT-2 randomized 938 adults with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity at 77 centers in seven countries including the United States from March 2021 to April 2023. The study had two primary outcomes: Average percent change in body weight from baseline to week 72, and percentage of participants who achieved a weight reduction from baseline of at least 5% after 72 weeks.
 

In-trial weight loss of 12.8%-14.7%

The in-trial analysis showed that a 10-mg weekly subcutaneous dose of tirzepatide resulted in an average 12.8% weight loss from baseline, and a 15-mg weekly subcutaneous dose led to an average 14.7% drop from baseline weight. People randomized to receive a placebo injection averaged a 3.2% drop from their baseline weight after 72 weeks, a finding that documents significant improvements compared with placebo with both tirzepatide doses.

The percentage of patients who achieved at least a 5% reduction in weight from baseline was 79% with the 10-mg dose of tirzepatide, 83% with the 15-mg dose, and 32% with placebo; these improvements were significant for both tirzepatide doses compared with placebo.

A 15% or greater reduction in weight from baseline occurred in 40%-48% of people who received tirzepatide compared with 3% of those who received placebo. A reduction in weight of this magnitude from baseline “will prevent a broad array of complications,” Dr. Garvey noted.

The results were simulatenously published online in The Lancet.
 

Glucose control without severe hypoglycemia

The safety profile of tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 was consistent with prior studies of the agent, as well as with other medications in the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting predominating, especially during the dose-escalation phase at treatment onset.

Dr. Garvey especially highlighted the overall safety of tirzepatide, and particularly its ability to produce clinically important reductions in A1c that averaged more than two percentage points from baseline values without producing a single episode of severe hypoglycemia, and an incidence of milder hypoglycemia of less than a 5%.

The absence of any severe hypoglycemia was “amazing,” Dr. Garvey said, especially given that 46%-49% of people taking tirzepatide in SURMOUNT-2 achieved normalization of their A1c to less than 5.7% on treatment compared with 4% of participants taking placebo.

The results also showed the benefit of a “big reduction in fasting insulin levels,” which averaged a 41% cut from baseline in those who received the 15-mg subcutaneous weekly dose of tirzepatide, coupled with increased insulin sensitivity, Dr. Garvey said.

Dr. Garvey disclosed ties to Eli Lilly, which sponsored SURMOUNT-2 and markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro), as well Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, and Merck. He has been an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. Dr. Pragnell and Dr. Brown-Friday have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.



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