User login
Latest steps toward reducing U.S. insulin cost begin in 2023
As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.
On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).
The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.
However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.
Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.
“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.
JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.
“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.
At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.
“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.
Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.
“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.
On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).
The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.
However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.
Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.
“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.
JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.
“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.
At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.
“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.
Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.
“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As of Jan. 1, 2023, the new provision tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Biden in August 2022, means that beneficiaries who take insulin via pen or syringe, covered under Medicare part D (prescription drugs), fall under the $35/month co-pay cap.
On July 1, 2023, the same out-of-pocket limit will also apply to those who take insulin via pump, which falls under Medicare part B (durable medical equipment).
The bill originally included the co-pay cap for people with private insurance as well, but that was stripped out as part of the reconciliation process and didn’t garner the necessary 60 Senate votes to keep it in prior to passage.
However, since 2019, 22 U.S. states have passed their own co-pay caps for people with state-regulated private insurance, ranging from $25 to $100 for a 30-day supply. A few states also cap the cost of diabetes devices as well.
Moreover, federal legislation could still address co-pay caps for people with private insurance, as well as include provisions to help those without insurance to afford insulin, Niels Knutson, director of government relations for the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization JDRF, told this news organization.
“There’s a whole menu of ideas on how to address the issue of insulin affordability. Most pathways to solving this on the federal level will require 60 votes in the Senate. There is universal recognition that this is a problem. The challenge becomes: is everybody on the same page for how to fix it,” Mr. Knutson said.
JDRF is supporting the bipartisan Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act, introduced in June 2022 by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), who co-chair the Senate Diabetes Caucus. The bill includes a co-pay cap and also provisions to encourage insulin manufacturers to reduce their list prices.
“The bill is unique in that it adds a pathway to reduce the cost of insulin for everybody, regardless of whether they have insurance or not ... We see the Insulin Act as being the best path forward and the most viable path to have the biggest impact for the most people,” Mr. Knutson explained.
At the same time, JDRF is also supporting a nonprofit pharmaceutical company called Civica, which plans to bring biosimilar versions of the insulin analogs glargine, lispro, and aspart to the U.S. market by 2024 at a cost of no more than $30 for a vial and $50 for a box of prefilled pens. The state of California is expected to partner with Civica as well.
“This is just another access point for insulin, especially for folks who are uninsured, that would make a big impact,” Mr. Knutson said.
Other entities that have announced intentions to bring lower-cost insulin to the United States market include the Korean firm Undbio and billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban, through his company Cost Plus Drugs.
“Insulin is such a clear and present crisis that we need to address,” Mr. Knutson said. “You’re seeing this problem being recognized and solutions from all different angles coming at it.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dubious diagnosis: Is there a better way to define ‘prediabetes’?
and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.
“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.
There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.
She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.
Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.
“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.
With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.
“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.
Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.
“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.
“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”
Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk
The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.
Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.
“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”
Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.
“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.
On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.
“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”
For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”
However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?
Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.
Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.
“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.
Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”
Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”
And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m2 did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?
Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”
“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”
Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”
In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’ That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”
The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.
Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.
“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.
There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.
She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.
Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.
“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.
With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.
“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.
Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.
“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.
“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”
Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk
The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.
Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.
“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”
Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.
“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.
On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.
“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”
For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”
However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?
Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.
Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.
“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.
Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”
Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”
And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m2 did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?
Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”
“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”
Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”
In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’ That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”
The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.
Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
and subsequent complications, and therefore merit more intensive intervention.
“Prediabetes” is the term coined to refer to either “impaired fasting glucose (IFG)” or “impaired glucose tolerance (IGT),” both denoting levels of elevated glycemia that don’t meet the thresholds for diabetes. It’s a heterogeneous group overall, and despite its name, not everyone with prediabetes will progress to develop type 2 diabetes.
There have been major increases in prediabetes in the United States and globally over the past 2 decades, epidemiologist Elizabeth Selvin, PhD, said at the recent IDF World Diabetes Congress 2022.
She noted that the concept of “prediabetes” has been controversial, previously dubbed a “dubious diagnosis” and a “boon for Pharma” in a 2019 Science article.
Others have said it’s “not a medical condition” and that it’s “an artificial category with virtually zero clinical relevance” in a press statement issued for a 2014 BMJ article.
“I don’t agree with these statements entirely but I think they speak to the confusion and tremendous controversy around the concept of prediabetes ... I think instead of calling prediabetes a ‘dubious diagnosis’ we should think of it as an opportunity,” said Dr. Selvin, of Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.
She proposes trying to home in on those with highest risk of developing type 2 diabetes, which she suggests could be achieved by using a combination of elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, although she stresses that this isn’t in any official guidance.
With the appropriate definition, people who are truly at risk for progression to type 2 diabetes can be identified so that lifestyle factors and cardiovascular risk can be addressed, and weight loss efforts implemented.
“Prevention of weight gain is ... important. That message often gets lost. Even if we can’t get people to lose weight, preventing [further] weight gain is important,” she noted.
Asked to comment, Sue Kirkman, MD, told this news organization, “The term prediabetes – or IFG or IGT or any of the ‘intermediate’ terms – is pragmatic in a way. It helps clinicians and patients understand that they are in a higher-risk category and might need intervention and likely need ongoing monitoring. But like many other risk factors [such as] blood pressure, [high] BMI, etc., the risk is not dichotomous but a continuum.
“People at the low end of the ‘intermediate’ range are not going to have much more risk compared to people who are ‘normal,’ while those at the high end of the range have very high risk,” said Dr. Kirkman, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a coauthor of the American Diabetes Association’s diabetes and prediabetes classifications.
“So we lose information if we just lump everyone into a single category. For individual patients, we definitely need better ways to estimate and communicate their potential risk.”
Currently five definitions for prediabetes: Home in on risk
The problem, Dr. Selvin explained, is that currently there are five official definitions for “prediabetes” using cutoffs for hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, or an oral glucose tolerance test.
Each one identifies different numbers of people with differing risk levels, ranging from a prevalence of 4.3% of the middle-aged adult population with the International Expert Committee’s definition of A1c 6.0%-6.4% to 43.5% with the American Diabetes Association’s 100-125 mg/dL fasting glucose.
“That’s an enormous difference. No wonder people are confused about who has prediabetes and what we should do about it,” Dr. Selvin said, adding that the concern about overdiagnosing “prediabetes” is even greater for older populations, in whom “it’s incredibly common to have mildly elevated glucose.”
Hence her proposal of what she sees as an evidence-based, “really easy solution” that clinicians can use now to better identify which patients with “intermediate hyperglycemia” to be most concerned about: Use a combination of fasting glucose above 100 mg/dL and an A1c greater than 5.7%.
“If you have both fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c, you can use them together ... This is not codified in any guidelines. You won’t see this mentioned anywhere. The guidelines are silent on what to do when some people have an elevated fasting glucose but not an elevated A1c ... but I think a simple message is that if people have both an elevated fasting glucose and an elevated A1c, that’s a very high-risk group,” she said.
On the other hand, Dr. Kirkman pointed out, “most discrepancies are near the margins, as in one test is slightly elevated and one isn’t, so those people probably are at low risk.
“It may be that both being elevated means higher risk because they have more hyperglycemia ... so it seems reasonable, but only if it changes what you tell people.”
For example, Dr. Kirkman said, “I’d tell someone with A1c of 5.8% and fasting glucose of 99 mg/dL the same thing I’d tell someone with that A1c and a glucose of 104 mg/dL – that their risk is still pretty low – and I’d recommend healthy lifestyle and weight loss if overweight either way.”
However, she also said, “Certainly people with higher glucose or A1c are at much higher risk, and same for those with both.”
Tie “prediabetes” definition to risk, as cardiology scores do?
Dr. Selvin also believes that risk-based definitions of prediabetes are needed. Ideally, these would incorporate demographics and clinical factors such as age and body mass index. Other biomarkers could potentially be developed and validated for inclusion in the definition, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), lipids, or even genetic/proteomic information.
Moreover, she thinks that the definition should be tied to clinical decision-making, as is the pooled cohort equation in cardiology.
“I think we could do something very similar in prediabetes,” she suggested, adding that even simply incorporating age and BMI into the definition could help further stratify the risk level until other predictors are validated.
Dr. Kirkman said, “The concept of risk scores a la cardiology is interesting, although we’d have to make them simple and also validate them against some outcome.”
Regarding the age issue, Dr. Kirkman noted that although age wasn’t a predictor of progression to type 2 diabetes in the placebo arm of the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) trial, “I do agree that it’s a problem that many older folks have the label of prediabetes because of a mildly elevated A1c and we know that most will never get diabetes.”
And, she noted, in the DPP people with prediabetes who had a BMI over 35 kg/m2 did have significantly higher progression rates than those with lower BMI, while women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus are also known to be at particularly high risk.
Whom should we throw the kitchen sink at?
Some of this discussion, Dr. Kirkman said, “is really a philosophical one, especially when you consider that lifestyle intervention has benefits for almost everyone on many short- and long-term outcomes.”
“The question is probably whom we should ‘throw the kitchen sink at,’ who should get more scalable advice that might apply to everyone regardless of glycemic levels, and whether there’s some more intermediate group that needs more of a [National Diabetes Prevention Program] approach.”
Dr. Selvin’s group is now working on gathering data to inform development of a risk-based prediabetes definition. “We have a whole research effort in this area. I hope that with some really strong data on risk in prediabetes, that can help to solve the heterogeneity issue. I’m focused on bringing evidence to bear to change the guidelines.”
In the meantime, she told this news organization, “I think there are things we can do now to provide more guidance. I get a lot of feedback from people saying things like ‘my physician told me I have prediabetes but now I don’t’ or ‘I saw in my labs that my blood sugar is elevated but my doctor never said anything.’ That’s a communications issue where we can do a better job.”
The meeting was sponsored by the International Diabetes Federation.
Dr. Selvin is deputy editor of Diabetes Care and on the editorial board of Diabetologia. She receives funding from the NIH and the Foundation for the NIH, and royalties from UpToDate for sections related to screening, diagnosis, and laboratory testing for diabetes. Dr. Kirkman reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT IDF WORLD DIABETES CONGRESS 2022
ADA issues 2023 ‘Standards of Care’ for diabetes: Focus on tight BP, lipids
New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.
The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.
The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.
“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.
“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management
As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.
The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.
The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.
In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.
But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”
The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.
To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.
For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.
“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.
Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.
And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.
Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone
Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.
The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m2 and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.
Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment
Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.
A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.
And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.
“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.
He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”
Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.
Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.
The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.
The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.
“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.
“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management
As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.
The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.
The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.
In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.
But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”
The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.
To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.
For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.
“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.
Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.
And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.
Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone
Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.
The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m2 and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.
Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment
Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.
A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.
And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.
“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.
He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”
Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.
Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.
The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.
The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.
“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.
“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management
As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.
The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.
The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.
In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.
But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”
The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.
To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.
For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.
“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.
Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.
And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.
Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone
Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.
The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m2 and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.
Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment
Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.
A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.
And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.
“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.
He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”
Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.
Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA okays Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitoring system
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system for people with all types of diabetes aged 2 years and older and for use during pregnancy.
The G7 has several improvements over the current G6 model, including a 60% smaller size, a 30-minute warm-up period (compared with 2 hours), an all-in-one sensor and transmitter (as opposed to the two separate devices), a mean absolute relative difference (compared with a standard, an assessment of accuracy) of 8.2% (compared with 12.8%), a 12-hour grace period (in contrast to the G6’s hard shutoff), and a redesigned mobile app.
It is indicated for wear on the back of the upper arm for people aged 2 years and older or the upper buttocks for ages 2-17 years old.
As an “integrated” CGM, the G7 has the capacity to work as part of automated insulin delivery systems, but that will require further FDA action. “Dexcom is working closely with its insulin pump partners to integrate Dexcom G7 into current and future automated insulin delivery systems as quickly as possible,” the company said in a statement.
Like the G6, it requires no fingersticks, scanning, or calibration. It provides real-time glucose readings every 5 minutes to a compatible device, including Apple Watch and other digital health apps, and allows for remote monitoring of data by as many as 10 followers.
Dexcom expects to initiate a U.S. launch of Dexcom G7 in early 2023. To facilitate immediate access to G7 for as many users as possible, the company will have accessible cash pay options in place as the company transitions coverage with availability for G7, the statement says.
The Dexcom G7 was granted a CE Mark (Conformité Européenne) in March 2022, which means it is approved for use in people with diabetes aged 2 years and older, including pregnant women, in Europe.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system for people with all types of diabetes aged 2 years and older and for use during pregnancy.
The G7 has several improvements over the current G6 model, including a 60% smaller size, a 30-minute warm-up period (compared with 2 hours), an all-in-one sensor and transmitter (as opposed to the two separate devices), a mean absolute relative difference (compared with a standard, an assessment of accuracy) of 8.2% (compared with 12.8%), a 12-hour grace period (in contrast to the G6’s hard shutoff), and a redesigned mobile app.
It is indicated for wear on the back of the upper arm for people aged 2 years and older or the upper buttocks for ages 2-17 years old.
As an “integrated” CGM, the G7 has the capacity to work as part of automated insulin delivery systems, but that will require further FDA action. “Dexcom is working closely with its insulin pump partners to integrate Dexcom G7 into current and future automated insulin delivery systems as quickly as possible,” the company said in a statement.
Like the G6, it requires no fingersticks, scanning, or calibration. It provides real-time glucose readings every 5 minutes to a compatible device, including Apple Watch and other digital health apps, and allows for remote monitoring of data by as many as 10 followers.
Dexcom expects to initiate a U.S. launch of Dexcom G7 in early 2023. To facilitate immediate access to G7 for as many users as possible, the company will have accessible cash pay options in place as the company transitions coverage with availability for G7, the statement says.
The Dexcom G7 was granted a CE Mark (Conformité Européenne) in March 2022, which means it is approved for use in people with diabetes aged 2 years and older, including pregnant women, in Europe.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Dexcom G7 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system for people with all types of diabetes aged 2 years and older and for use during pregnancy.
The G7 has several improvements over the current G6 model, including a 60% smaller size, a 30-minute warm-up period (compared with 2 hours), an all-in-one sensor and transmitter (as opposed to the two separate devices), a mean absolute relative difference (compared with a standard, an assessment of accuracy) of 8.2% (compared with 12.8%), a 12-hour grace period (in contrast to the G6’s hard shutoff), and a redesigned mobile app.
It is indicated for wear on the back of the upper arm for people aged 2 years and older or the upper buttocks for ages 2-17 years old.
As an “integrated” CGM, the G7 has the capacity to work as part of automated insulin delivery systems, but that will require further FDA action. “Dexcom is working closely with its insulin pump partners to integrate Dexcom G7 into current and future automated insulin delivery systems as quickly as possible,” the company said in a statement.
Like the G6, it requires no fingersticks, scanning, or calibration. It provides real-time glucose readings every 5 minutes to a compatible device, including Apple Watch and other digital health apps, and allows for remote monitoring of data by as many as 10 followers.
Dexcom expects to initiate a U.S. launch of Dexcom G7 in early 2023. To facilitate immediate access to G7 for as many users as possible, the company will have accessible cash pay options in place as the company transitions coverage with availability for G7, the statement says.
The Dexcom G7 was granted a CE Mark (Conformité Européenne) in March 2022, which means it is approved for use in people with diabetes aged 2 years and older, including pregnant women, in Europe.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
With type 1 diabetes delay possible, focus now on screening
The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.
The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.
It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.
But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.
During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.”
Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”
During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.
Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
How would screening happen?
While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.
Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.
Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.
However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.
“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.
He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.
And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.
“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”
A two-pronged approach to screening could work best
Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.
“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”
Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.
“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”
He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”
While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”
But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”
During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.
Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.
The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.
It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.
But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.
During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.”
Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”
During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.
Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
How would screening happen?
While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.
Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.
Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.
However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.
“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.
He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.
And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.
“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”
A two-pronged approach to screening could work best
Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.
“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”
Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.
“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”
He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”
While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”
But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”
During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.
Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.
The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.
It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.
But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.
During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.”
Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”
During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.
Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
How would screening happen?
While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.
Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.
Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.
However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.
The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.
“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.
He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.
And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.
“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”
A two-pronged approach to screening could work best
Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.
“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”
Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.
“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”
He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”
While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”
But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”
During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.
Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves first-ever agent to delay type 1 diabetes onset
“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”
The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.
Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.
Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
T1D onset delayed by 2 years
In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.
Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).
C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).
“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.
The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.
This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.
Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.
In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”
The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.
Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.
Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
T1D onset delayed by 2 years
In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.
Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).
C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).
“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.
The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.
This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.
Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.
In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”
The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.
The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.
Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.
The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.
Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
T1D onset delayed by 2 years
In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.
Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).
C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015).
“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.
The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.
This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.
Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.
In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Has the time come for glucose monitors for people without diabetes?
Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.
Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.
In a related issue that highlights a limitation in this area, new data suggest that the “glucose management indicator (GMI)” feature of CGMs used for diabetes management – a percentage derived from people with diabetes and elevated A1c – may overestimate the actual A1c level in people without diabetes or those with diabetes who maintain A1c less than 6.5%.
“This is an evolving space ... CGM in people with prediabetes may be beneficial, but we need more data and evidence to recommend it. CGM metrics such as time-in-range and GMI are designed for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and therefore, they are not applicable for people without diabetes,” Viral Shah, MD, said in an interview.
During the recent virtual Diabetes Technology Society meeting, Dr. Shah presented results from a soon-to-be published study finding that on average, GMI was 0.59% higher in people with A1c less than 5.7% and 0.49% higher for A1c 5.7%-6.4%, both significant (P < .0001). Dr. Shah, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Adult Clinic, Aurora, Colorado, also presented those data in June at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Juan Espinoza, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization that there are data showing that CGM can be a “powerful biofeedback tool” in people with obesity who don’t have diabetes. “Since they don’t have diabetes the time in range or GMI is meaningless. What’s useful for them is seeing the glucose changes in real time and then using that as a trigger for behavioral change.”
‘An idea whose time has come?’
Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.
Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.
Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.
As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.
But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”
Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”
Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.
“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
What to do with the data?
The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.
Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.
Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”
He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”
In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”
Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.
Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.
In a related issue that highlights a limitation in this area, new data suggest that the “glucose management indicator (GMI)” feature of CGMs used for diabetes management – a percentage derived from people with diabetes and elevated A1c – may overestimate the actual A1c level in people without diabetes or those with diabetes who maintain A1c less than 6.5%.
“This is an evolving space ... CGM in people with prediabetes may be beneficial, but we need more data and evidence to recommend it. CGM metrics such as time-in-range and GMI are designed for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and therefore, they are not applicable for people without diabetes,” Viral Shah, MD, said in an interview.
During the recent virtual Diabetes Technology Society meeting, Dr. Shah presented results from a soon-to-be published study finding that on average, GMI was 0.59% higher in people with A1c less than 5.7% and 0.49% higher for A1c 5.7%-6.4%, both significant (P < .0001). Dr. Shah, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Adult Clinic, Aurora, Colorado, also presented those data in June at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Juan Espinoza, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization that there are data showing that CGM can be a “powerful biofeedback tool” in people with obesity who don’t have diabetes. “Since they don’t have diabetes the time in range or GMI is meaningless. What’s useful for them is seeing the glucose changes in real time and then using that as a trigger for behavioral change.”
‘An idea whose time has come?’
Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.
Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.
Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.
As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.
But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”
Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”
Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.
“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
What to do with the data?
The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.
Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.
Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”
He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”
In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”
Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.
Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.
In a related issue that highlights a limitation in this area, new data suggest that the “glucose management indicator (GMI)” feature of CGMs used for diabetes management – a percentage derived from people with diabetes and elevated A1c – may overestimate the actual A1c level in people without diabetes or those with diabetes who maintain A1c less than 6.5%.
“This is an evolving space ... CGM in people with prediabetes may be beneficial, but we need more data and evidence to recommend it. CGM metrics such as time-in-range and GMI are designed for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and therefore, they are not applicable for people without diabetes,” Viral Shah, MD, said in an interview.
During the recent virtual Diabetes Technology Society meeting, Dr. Shah presented results from a soon-to-be published study finding that on average, GMI was 0.59% higher in people with A1c less than 5.7% and 0.49% higher for A1c 5.7%-6.4%, both significant (P < .0001). Dr. Shah, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Adult Clinic, Aurora, Colorado, also presented those data in June at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Juan Espinoza, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization that there are data showing that CGM can be a “powerful biofeedback tool” in people with obesity who don’t have diabetes. “Since they don’t have diabetes the time in range or GMI is meaningless. What’s useful for them is seeing the glucose changes in real time and then using that as a trigger for behavioral change.”
‘An idea whose time has come?’
Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.
Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.
Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.
As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.
But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”
Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”
Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.
“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
What to do with the data?
The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.
Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.
Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”
He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”
In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”
Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2022
Exercise later in the day for better blood glucose control?
The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m2 in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.
“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.
Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
Is it down to circadian rhythm?
“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.
Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”
But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”
Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”
Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat
The findings were published online in Diabetologia.
The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.
Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.
However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.
After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.
Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.
Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.
“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.
Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”
The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m2 in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.
“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.
Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
Is it down to circadian rhythm?
“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.
Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”
But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”
Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”
Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat
The findings were published online in Diabetologia.
The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.
Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.
However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.
After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.
Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.
Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.
“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.
Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”
The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The data come from 775 participants with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m2 in the observational Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Use of activity monitors for four consecutive days showed that performance of MVPA (defined as activity with intensity of > 3 metabolic equivalents of task) in the afternoon or evening was associated with up to 25% reduced insulin resistance compared with an even distribution of activity during the day.
“This is one of the first studies where in humans the relation between timing of physical activity and insulin resistance was examined,” lead author Jeroen van der Velde of the department of clinical epidemiology, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.
Moreover, he noted that, while previous intervention studies have shown greater blood glucose reduction with high-intensity exercise performed in the afternoon, compared with the morning, in people with impaired glucose metabolism or type 2 diabetes, “as far as I am aware, we were the first to use a population-based study in a general population to study this.”
Katarina Kos, MD, PhD, senior lecturer in diabetes and obesity, University of Exeter (England), said: “This study is novel in that it relates the timing of physical activity if performed in the morning, afternoon, or evening to insulin resistance and fat content. This is from a cohort of middle-aged Dutch people between ages 45-65 studied 10 years ago and based on self-reports of weight and eating behavior and who were found to be generally overweight.”
Is it down to circadian rhythm?
“The results are of interest in that if the chosen timing was in the afternoon [63% of studied population] or evening (8% of the studied population), it seemed to relate with improved metabolism when compared to the morning exercising [16% of population]. ... Whether this was due to the (timing) of activity is yet to be shown,” Dr. Kos told the UK Science Media Centre.
Mr. van der Velde agrees that the effect may be explained at least in part by the circadian rhythm of the body. “Physical activity may act as ... a cue for the activation of clock genes. Previous research has suggested that our body’s muscular system and oxidative system are also affected by our circadian rhythm and their peak activity seems to be in the late afternoon. So, being mostly active in this time period ... may elicit greater metabolic responses compared to being active in the morning.”
But, he cautioned, “I think it is important to realize that we are just beginning to understand the potential impact of physical activity timing. At this stage, I believe it is most important to be physically active in general. So ... if the morning is the only time of the day to go for a walk or a run, certainly do this.”
Dr. Kos concurred: “As this is not an intervention study, further research is needed to explain the cause of the observed association.”
Mr. van der Velde also added that it’s not yet clear which individuals or subgroups might experience additional benefits from timed activities. That’s the current research focus of a large consortium of several research institutes in the Netherlands and Canada.
Timed exercise reduces insulin resistance but not liver fat
The findings were published online in Diabetologia.
The study population included men and women living in the greater Leiden area in the western Netherlands who were aged 45-65 years and self-reported a BMI of 27 or higher. A second cohort included inhabitants of one municipality who were invited to participate regardless of their BMI. All wore the activity monitors for 4 consecutive days and nights during their usual activities.
Neither sedentary time nor breaks in sedentary time (defined as a period of activity with an acceleration greater than 0.75 m/s2 following a sedentary period) were associated with lower insulin resistance, as calculated by blood sampling.
However, the number of breaks in sedentary time was associated with a significant 22% higher liver fat content, assessed with proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
One reason for the lack of effect of breaks on insulin resistance, the authors theorized, is that this was a real-world observational study where regular breaks aren’t common. Alternatively, people might not have been intensively active enough during breaks to make a difference.
After adjustment for total body fat, an additional hour of MVPA was associated with a 5% drop in insulin resistance. An additional hour of MVPA in 5-minute bouts was associated with 9% lower insulin resistance.
Also after adjustments, insulin resistance was reduced significantly in participants who were most active in the afternoon, by 18%, or evening, by 25%, whereas insulin resistance was not affected among those who were most active in the morning (–3%), all compared with people who distributed their MVPA throughout the day.
Timing of MVPA was not associated with liver fat content, and there were no significant differences in liver fat content and insulin resistance between groups based on timing of light physical activity.
“This is just speculation, but perhaps for fat accumulation in the liver the circadian system is less involved. Or perhaps timing of other lifestyle variables are more important here, such as dietary intake,” Mr. van der Velde said.
Finally, he observed, “timing of physical activity is most likely just a piece of the puzzle. Timing of other lifestyle behavior, such as sleep, and food intake are important cues for our circadian system as well, and it is likely that all these behaviors interact with each other.”
The NEO study is supported by Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation, and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development/Partnership Diabetes/Dutch Diabetes foundation Breakthrough. Mr. van der Velde has reported no further disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETOLOGIA
Vitamin D deficiency linked to death, new study finds
Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.
They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.
Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Unlike other types of observational studies, we have overcome some of the methodological obstacles. What is special about this new study is we were able to look at people with very low vitamin D concentrations and what would happen if their concentrations were a little bit higher. Most randomized controlled trials don’t show much of an effect. That’s because most people have sufficient concentrations. Ethically you can’t do a trial of people with very low levels without treating them,” senior author Elina Hypp
The data support the 50 nmol/L cut-off endorsed by the United States National Academy of Medicine and align with previous data suggesting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation is largely seen in people with deficiency.
“Everybody with vitamin D levels less than 50 nmol/L is recommended to increase their levels. Our results suggest there’s no need to go very high. The positive message is that if we are able to raise levels to just the current U.S. recommendations, that’s fine. There’s no need to use large supplement doses,” Dr. Hyppönen explained.
Thus, she advised, “Supplementation will clearly help, especially during wintertime or if a person isn’t getting enough vitamin D from the sun or in places where food isn’t fortified with vitamin D.”
But the data don’t support the approach of using large intermittent doses, she added.
“Sometimes doctors want to fix the deficiency quickly with a large ‘bolus’ dose, then continue with a maintenance dose. Increasing evidence suggests that’s not beneficial and might disturb the body’s metabolism so that it can’t get the amount it needs. It’s safe overall but might not work the way we want it to work.”
Rather, Dr. Hyppönen said, “My sense is that daily modest vitamin D dose supplementation when it’s needed is the best way forward.”
Genetic approach reveals causal relationship
The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.
Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.
The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0 and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.
During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D
The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.
With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).
Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.
Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.
And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.
Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.
Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.
The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.
They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.
Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Unlike other types of observational studies, we have overcome some of the methodological obstacles. What is special about this new study is we were able to look at people with very low vitamin D concentrations and what would happen if their concentrations were a little bit higher. Most randomized controlled trials don’t show much of an effect. That’s because most people have sufficient concentrations. Ethically you can’t do a trial of people with very low levels without treating them,” senior author Elina Hypp
The data support the 50 nmol/L cut-off endorsed by the United States National Academy of Medicine and align with previous data suggesting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation is largely seen in people with deficiency.
“Everybody with vitamin D levels less than 50 nmol/L is recommended to increase their levels. Our results suggest there’s no need to go very high. The positive message is that if we are able to raise levels to just the current U.S. recommendations, that’s fine. There’s no need to use large supplement doses,” Dr. Hyppönen explained.
Thus, she advised, “Supplementation will clearly help, especially during wintertime or if a person isn’t getting enough vitamin D from the sun or in places where food isn’t fortified with vitamin D.”
But the data don’t support the approach of using large intermittent doses, she added.
“Sometimes doctors want to fix the deficiency quickly with a large ‘bolus’ dose, then continue with a maintenance dose. Increasing evidence suggests that’s not beneficial and might disturb the body’s metabolism so that it can’t get the amount it needs. It’s safe overall but might not work the way we want it to work.”
Rather, Dr. Hyppönen said, “My sense is that daily modest vitamin D dose supplementation when it’s needed is the best way forward.”
Genetic approach reveals causal relationship
The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.
Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.
The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0 and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.
During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D
The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.
With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).
Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.
Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.
And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.
Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.
Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.
The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitamin D deficiency increases mortality risk and raising levels even slightly could decrease the risk, researchers examining data from the UK Biobank have found.
They used a Mendelian randomization approach, which uses genetic variants as “proxy indicators” for external factors that affect vitamin D levels, such as sun exposure or dietary intake. It allows for analysis of the relationship between deficiency and outcomes including mortality, which can’t be done in randomized clinical trials for ethical reasons.
Using this method, nutritionist Joshua P. Sutherland, PhD, of the Australian Centre for Precision Health, Adelaide, and colleagues found an association between genetically predicted vitamin D levels [25-(OH)D] and mortality from several major causes, with evidence of causality among people with measured concentrations below, but not above, 50 nmol/L. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Unlike other types of observational studies, we have overcome some of the methodological obstacles. What is special about this new study is we were able to look at people with very low vitamin D concentrations and what would happen if their concentrations were a little bit higher. Most randomized controlled trials don’t show much of an effect. That’s because most people have sufficient concentrations. Ethically you can’t do a trial of people with very low levels without treating them,” senior author Elina Hypp
The data support the 50 nmol/L cut-off endorsed by the United States National Academy of Medicine and align with previous data suggesting the benefit of vitamin D supplementation is largely seen in people with deficiency.
“Everybody with vitamin D levels less than 50 nmol/L is recommended to increase their levels. Our results suggest there’s no need to go very high. The positive message is that if we are able to raise levels to just the current U.S. recommendations, that’s fine. There’s no need to use large supplement doses,” Dr. Hyppönen explained.
Thus, she advised, “Supplementation will clearly help, especially during wintertime or if a person isn’t getting enough vitamin D from the sun or in places where food isn’t fortified with vitamin D.”
But the data don’t support the approach of using large intermittent doses, she added.
“Sometimes doctors want to fix the deficiency quickly with a large ‘bolus’ dose, then continue with a maintenance dose. Increasing evidence suggests that’s not beneficial and might disturb the body’s metabolism so that it can’t get the amount it needs. It’s safe overall but might not work the way we want it to work.”
Rather, Dr. Hyppönen said, “My sense is that daily modest vitamin D dose supplementation when it’s needed is the best way forward.”
Genetic approach reveals causal relationship
The investigators analyzed data from 307,601 individuals in the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort of people recruited from England, Scotland, and Wales during March 2006 and July 2010. Most were of White European ancestry and were aged 37-73 years at baseline.
Genetically predicted vitamin D levels were estimated using 35 confirmed 25-(OH)D variants. Participants were followed for outcomes up to June 2020.
The average baseline measured 25-(OH)D concentration was 45.2 nmol/L, and 11.7% (n = 36,009) of participants had levels between 10.0 and 24.9 nmol/L. Higher levels were seen in people living in southern areas and nonsmokers as well as those with a higher level of physical activity, less socioeconomic deprivation, and lower body mass index.
During follow-up, 6.1% of participants died (n = 18,700). After adjustment for variables, odds ratios for all causes of mortality were highest among people with 25-(OH)D levels below 25 nmol/L and appeared to plateau between 50 and 75 nmol/L, with no further reduction in mortality at values of 75-125 nmol/L.
Mortality 36% higher in those deficient in vitamin D
The risk for mortality was a significant 36% higher for participants with 25-(OH)D 25 nmol/L compared with 50 nmol/L.
With the Mendelian randomization, there was an L-shaped association between genetically predicted 25-(OH)D level and all-cause mortality (P for nonlinearity < .001) and for mortality because of cancer and cardiovascular disease (P for nonlinearity ≤ .033).
Again, the strongest association with those outcomes and genetically predicted 25-(OH)D was found at levels below 25 nmol/L and a plateau was seen by 50 nmol/L.
Compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, investigators estimated that the genetically predicted odds of all-cause mortality would increase sixfold (odds ratio, 6.00) for participants at 10 nmol/L and by 25% (OR, 1.25) for those at 25 nmol/L.
And, compared with a measured 25-(OH)D concentration of 50 nmol/L, those with 10 nmol/L had genetically predicted odds ratios of 5.98 for cardiovascular mortality, 3.37 for cancer mortality, and 12.44 for respiratory mortality.
Comparing measured 25-(OH)D concentrations of 25 nmol/L versus 50 nmol/L, odds ratios for those outcomes were 1.25, 1.16, and 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.67), respectively. All were statistically significant.
Consistent results supportive of a causal effect of genetically predicted 25-(OH)D on all-cause mortality in those with low measured vitamin D concentrations were also found in a sensitivity analysis of 20,837 people of non-White ethnic origin.
The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Sutherland’s studentship is funded by an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Goodbye ‘diabetes insipidus’, hello ‘AVP-D’ and ‘AVP-R’
An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.
The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.
“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.
The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”
The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.
Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
What’s in a name?
The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.
Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.
A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.
In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.
“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.
‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion
Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L.
“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”
In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.
Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.
There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.
“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.
But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”
As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.
“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.
Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.
The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.
“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.
The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”
The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.
Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
What’s in a name?
The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.
Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.
A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.
In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.
“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.
‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion
Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L.
“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”
In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.
Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.
There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.
“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.
But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”
As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.
“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.
Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.
The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.
“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.
The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”
The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.
Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
What’s in a name?
The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.
Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.
A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.
In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.
“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.
‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion
Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L.
“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”
In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.
Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.
There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.
“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.
But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”
As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.
“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.
Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.