Miriam E. Tucker

NEW ORLEANS – Two patients with type 1 diabetes have now experienced improved blood glucose control with Vertex Pharmaceutical’s investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived islets (VX-880), with the first person now completely insulin independent at 9 months post transplant.

Prior to the procedure, both patients had hypoglycemic unawareness and had experienced multiple episodes of severe hypoglycemia, conditions considered severe enough to justify the risk of immune suppression (which is required for such stem cell–derived islet transplants as they are “foreign” to the recipient).

The first patient, a 64-year-old man with type 1 diabetes for more than 40 years, now has a hemoglobin A1c in the normal range without taking any insulin more than 9 months after the procedure. The second, a 35-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 10.7 years, experienced a 30% reduction in insulin use and significant increased time spent in target glucose range, by 5 months post transplant. Both patients were given just half the targeted VX-880 dose.

Data for those two patients – the first in Vertex’s phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of VX-880 – were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, by James F. Markmann, MD, PhD.

He has been transplanting pancreatic islet cells from deceased donors into humans via infusion into the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

Transplantation of pancreatic islet cells obtained from cadavers have been shown to eliminate severe hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes, but they’re limited in quantity and are of variable quality. Islets that are manufactured via differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells represent an alternative, explained Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is a new area. ... We hope this will be the same or potentially better. With stem cell–derived islets the quality, consistency, and reliability might produce a better result than with cadaveric islets,” he commented during a press briefing here.

A third patient has recently received the full targeted VX-880 dose but was not part of the current report. The planned enrollment is 17 patients. The trial is currently on clinical hold per the Food and Drug Administration concerning the criteria around dose escalation, but Vertex is working with the FDA to sort that out. Meanwhile, enrollment remains open in Canada, Dr. Markmann said.

In answer to a question about how patient 1 is doing now, Dr. Markmann replied, “He’s doing great. He’s probably the most appreciative patient I’ve ever met. His life was being destroyed by diabetes. He couldn’t work. He crashed his motorcycle from [low blood sugar]. He really was tremendously appreciative that he could participate.”

When Dr. Markmann explained the potential uncertainties and risks to the patient prior to the procedure, the patient replied: “I want to participate. If I die from this and I help somebody else I’d be happy, but I can’t go on living the way I’m living.”

“These people really suffer and this, I think, brings hope to them,” Dr. Markmann said.
 

‘Beautiful data’ seen in two patients, with ‘transformational’ potential

Asked to comment, Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president for Research & Science at the ADA, told this news organization: “It’s beautiful data. People who have type 1 diabetes lack [pancreatic] beta cells ... it was impossible to get sufficient beta cells from cadaveric transplants. It’s just nowhere near enough. If this is safe and effective, if they continue to show safety and efficacy like patient 1, this will be transformational.”

Dr. Markmann presented data for the most recent study visit for each of the two patients, 270 days for patient 1 and 150 days for patient 2. Prior to the transplants, patient 1 had experienced five severe hypoglycemic events and patient 2 had experienced three.

Both had undetectable C-peptide levels at baseline. In response to a mixed-meal tolerance test, patient 1 showed a “robust” C-peptide response by day 90, which increased by day 180. Those levels had dropped but were still detectable by day 270, “possibly due to improved insulin sensitivity,” Dr. Markmann said.

Similarly, Patient 2 also had increased C-peptide that increased to detectable range by day 90 with improved glucose disposal.

Hemoglobin A1c dropped in patient 1 from 8.6% at baseline to 6.9% at day 180, to a “remarkable” 5.2% at day 270. For patient 2, the drop was from 7.5% to a nadir of 6.4% by day 57, then reversing back to 7.1% at day 150.  

Both patients also had significant reductions in insulin dose. For patient 1, the dose reduction was more than 90% – from 34 units at baseline to 2.6 units by day 90. By day 210 he was able to stop insulin and by day 270 he met formal criteria for insulin independence.

Patient 2 also had a significant reduction in insulin dose, from 25.9 units to 18.7 by day 57 and remained stable thereafter, at 18.2 units by day 150.

Asked why Patient 2’s results weren’t quite as impressive as patient 1’s, Dr. Markmann replied “I think what’s important is that both patients did great. And since this was a half-dose, we might have expected that the outcome was going to be more like patient 2 rather than patient 1. So, I think we’re just going to have to [study this in] more patients to understand where it falls.” 

Although patient 1 experienced a cluster of six severe hypoglycemic events early in the posttransplant period, he had no further events after day 35. Patient 2 had no severe hypoglycemic events.

Other safety events were generally consistent with that seen with the immunosuppressive regimen in the perioperative period. Patient 1 had a “mild and self-limited” rise in liver function test and also experienced two severe adverse events: A rash from the immune suppression that resolved spontaneously, and dehydration requiring hospitalization on day 186. Patient 2’s adverse events were all mild to moderate, most commonly headache and hypomagnesemia and not related to VX-880.

Immunosuppression: Work is ongoing

The immunosuppression regimen used comprises a depletion of lymphocytes at induction, followed by a maintenance regimen of two standard agents used in kidney transplant patients and found to be well tolerated, Dr. Markmann said.

Still, the risk of immunosuppression generally outweighs the potential benefit for most people with type 1 diabetes who are managing reasonably well with insulin treatment.

“This is part one of a two-part problem. One is to have a reliable, consistent, effective cell therapy. The second is to develop an approach that doesn’t require immunosuppression. ... But if we had a way of transplanting the cells without the need for immunosuppression, then it could be really widely available. That’s an opportunity for the future since these cells can be made in unlimited quantities,” Dr. Markmann commented during the press briefing.

Asked for his thoughts about the immunosuppression aspect, Dr. Pragnell told this news organization: “Immune suppression is a concern, but I feel that this is just the start of so much research in this area. They’re going to take this step by step. This is just the start. My understanding is they have additional strategies around immune suppression, and in the future they might not even need immunosuppression. But even at this stage right now, it’s amazing.”

He added: “The ‘artificial pancreas’ is a huge step forward, but it’s just a bridge to a cure, whereas if they’re able to show safety and efficacy, this is potentially a cure. ... I’m very excited about it.”

Dr. Markmann serves on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and QihanBio. He is a consultant to Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pragnell is an ADA employee and has no further disclosures.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Two patients with type 1 diabetes have now experienced improved blood glucose control with Vertex Pharmaceutical’s investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived islets (VX-880), with the first person now completely insulin independent at 9 months post transplant.

Prior to the procedure, both patients had hypoglycemic unawareness and had experienced multiple episodes of severe hypoglycemia, conditions considered severe enough to justify the risk of immune suppression (which is required for such stem cell–derived islet transplants as they are “foreign” to the recipient).

The first patient, a 64-year-old man with type 1 diabetes for more than 40 years, now has a hemoglobin A1c in the normal range without taking any insulin more than 9 months after the procedure. The second, a 35-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 10.7 years, experienced a 30% reduction in insulin use and significant increased time spent in target glucose range, by 5 months post transplant. Both patients were given just half the targeted VX-880 dose.

Data for those two patients – the first in Vertex’s phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of VX-880 – were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, by James F. Markmann, MD, PhD.

He has been transplanting pancreatic islet cells from deceased donors into humans via infusion into the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

Transplantation of pancreatic islet cells obtained from cadavers have been shown to eliminate severe hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes, but they’re limited in quantity and are of variable quality. Islets that are manufactured via differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells represent an alternative, explained Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is a new area. ... We hope this will be the same or potentially better. With stem cell–derived islets the quality, consistency, and reliability might produce a better result than with cadaveric islets,” he commented during a press briefing here.

A third patient has recently received the full targeted VX-880 dose but was not part of the current report. The planned enrollment is 17 patients. The trial is currently on clinical hold per the Food and Drug Administration concerning the criteria around dose escalation, but Vertex is working with the FDA to sort that out. Meanwhile, enrollment remains open in Canada, Dr. Markmann said.

In answer to a question about how patient 1 is doing now, Dr. Markmann replied, “He’s doing great. He’s probably the most appreciative patient I’ve ever met. His life was being destroyed by diabetes. He couldn’t work. He crashed his motorcycle from [low blood sugar]. He really was tremendously appreciative that he could participate.”

When Dr. Markmann explained the potential uncertainties and risks to the patient prior to the procedure, the patient replied: “I want to participate. If I die from this and I help somebody else I’d be happy, but I can’t go on living the way I’m living.”

“These people really suffer and this, I think, brings hope to them,” Dr. Markmann said.
 

‘Beautiful data’ seen in two patients, with ‘transformational’ potential

Asked to comment, Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president for Research & Science at the ADA, told this news organization: “It’s beautiful data. People who have type 1 diabetes lack [pancreatic] beta cells ... it was impossible to get sufficient beta cells from cadaveric transplants. It’s just nowhere near enough. If this is safe and effective, if they continue to show safety and efficacy like patient 1, this will be transformational.”

Dr. Markmann presented data for the most recent study visit for each of the two patients, 270 days for patient 1 and 150 days for patient 2. Prior to the transplants, patient 1 had experienced five severe hypoglycemic events and patient 2 had experienced three.

Both had undetectable C-peptide levels at baseline. In response to a mixed-meal tolerance test, patient 1 showed a “robust” C-peptide response by day 90, which increased by day 180. Those levels had dropped but were still detectable by day 270, “possibly due to improved insulin sensitivity,” Dr. Markmann said.

Similarly, Patient 2 also had increased C-peptide that increased to detectable range by day 90 with improved glucose disposal.

Hemoglobin A1c dropped in patient 1 from 8.6% at baseline to 6.9% at day 180, to a “remarkable” 5.2% at day 270. For patient 2, the drop was from 7.5% to a nadir of 6.4% by day 57, then reversing back to 7.1% at day 150.  

Both patients also had significant reductions in insulin dose. For patient 1, the dose reduction was more than 90% – from 34 units at baseline to 2.6 units by day 90. By day 210 he was able to stop insulin and by day 270 he met formal criteria for insulin independence.

Patient 2 also had a significant reduction in insulin dose, from 25.9 units to 18.7 by day 57 and remained stable thereafter, at 18.2 units by day 150.

Asked why Patient 2’s results weren’t quite as impressive as patient 1’s, Dr. Markmann replied “I think what’s important is that both patients did great. And since this was a half-dose, we might have expected that the outcome was going to be more like patient 2 rather than patient 1. So, I think we’re just going to have to [study this in] more patients to understand where it falls.” 

Although patient 1 experienced a cluster of six severe hypoglycemic events early in the posttransplant period, he had no further events after day 35. Patient 2 had no severe hypoglycemic events.

Other safety events were generally consistent with that seen with the immunosuppressive regimen in the perioperative period. Patient 1 had a “mild and self-limited” rise in liver function test and also experienced two severe adverse events: A rash from the immune suppression that resolved spontaneously, and dehydration requiring hospitalization on day 186. Patient 2’s adverse events were all mild to moderate, most commonly headache and hypomagnesemia and not related to VX-880.

Immunosuppression: Work is ongoing

The immunosuppression regimen used comprises a depletion of lymphocytes at induction, followed by a maintenance regimen of two standard agents used in kidney transplant patients and found to be well tolerated, Dr. Markmann said.

Still, the risk of immunosuppression generally outweighs the potential benefit for most people with type 1 diabetes who are managing reasonably well with insulin treatment.

“This is part one of a two-part problem. One is to have a reliable, consistent, effective cell therapy. The second is to develop an approach that doesn’t require immunosuppression. ... But if we had a way of transplanting the cells without the need for immunosuppression, then it could be really widely available. That’s an opportunity for the future since these cells can be made in unlimited quantities,” Dr. Markmann commented during the press briefing.

Asked for his thoughts about the immunosuppression aspect, Dr. Pragnell told this news organization: “Immune suppression is a concern, but I feel that this is just the start of so much research in this area. They’re going to take this step by step. This is just the start. My understanding is they have additional strategies around immune suppression, and in the future they might not even need immunosuppression. But even at this stage right now, it’s amazing.”

He added: “The ‘artificial pancreas’ is a huge step forward, but it’s just a bridge to a cure, whereas if they’re able to show safety and efficacy, this is potentially a cure. ... I’m very excited about it.”

Dr. Markmann serves on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and QihanBio. He is a consultant to Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pragnell is an ADA employee and has no further disclosures.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Two patients with type 1 diabetes have now experienced improved blood glucose control with Vertex Pharmaceutical’s investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived islets (VX-880), with the first person now completely insulin independent at 9 months post transplant.

Prior to the procedure, both patients had hypoglycemic unawareness and had experienced multiple episodes of severe hypoglycemia, conditions considered severe enough to justify the risk of immune suppression (which is required for such stem cell–derived islet transplants as they are “foreign” to the recipient).

The first patient, a 64-year-old man with type 1 diabetes for more than 40 years, now has a hemoglobin A1c in the normal range without taking any insulin more than 9 months after the procedure. The second, a 35-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes for 10.7 years, experienced a 30% reduction in insulin use and significant increased time spent in target glucose range, by 5 months post transplant. Both patients were given just half the targeted VX-880 dose.

Data for those two patients – the first in Vertex’s phase 1/2 multicenter, single-arm, open-label clinical trial of VX-880 – were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, by James F. Markmann, MD, PhD.

He has been transplanting pancreatic islet cells from deceased donors into humans via infusion into the hepatic portal vein for over 20 years.

Transplantation of pancreatic islet cells obtained from cadavers have been shown to eliminate severe hypoglycemia and improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes, but they’re limited in quantity and are of variable quality. Islets that are manufactured via differentiation from human pluripotent stem cells represent an alternative, explained Dr. Markmann, chief of the division of transplant surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is a new area. ... We hope this will be the same or potentially better. With stem cell–derived islets the quality, consistency, and reliability might produce a better result than with cadaveric islets,” he commented during a press briefing here.

A third patient has recently received the full targeted VX-880 dose but was not part of the current report. The planned enrollment is 17 patients. The trial is currently on clinical hold per the Food and Drug Administration concerning the criteria around dose escalation, but Vertex is working with the FDA to sort that out. Meanwhile, enrollment remains open in Canada, Dr. Markmann said.

In answer to a question about how patient 1 is doing now, Dr. Markmann replied, “He’s doing great. He’s probably the most appreciative patient I’ve ever met. His life was being destroyed by diabetes. He couldn’t work. He crashed his motorcycle from [low blood sugar]. He really was tremendously appreciative that he could participate.”

When Dr. Markmann explained the potential uncertainties and risks to the patient prior to the procedure, the patient replied: “I want to participate. If I die from this and I help somebody else I’d be happy, but I can’t go on living the way I’m living.”

“These people really suffer and this, I think, brings hope to them,” Dr. Markmann said.
 

‘Beautiful data’ seen in two patients, with ‘transformational’ potential

Asked to comment, Marlon Pragnell, PhD, vice president for Research & Science at the ADA, told this news organization: “It’s beautiful data. People who have type 1 diabetes lack [pancreatic] beta cells ... it was impossible to get sufficient beta cells from cadaveric transplants. It’s just nowhere near enough. If this is safe and effective, if they continue to show safety and efficacy like patient 1, this will be transformational.”

Dr. Markmann presented data for the most recent study visit for each of the two patients, 270 days for patient 1 and 150 days for patient 2. Prior to the transplants, patient 1 had experienced five severe hypoglycemic events and patient 2 had experienced three.

Both had undetectable C-peptide levels at baseline. In response to a mixed-meal tolerance test, patient 1 showed a “robust” C-peptide response by day 90, which increased by day 180. Those levels had dropped but were still detectable by day 270, “possibly due to improved insulin sensitivity,” Dr. Markmann said.

Similarly, Patient 2 also had increased C-peptide that increased to detectable range by day 90 with improved glucose disposal.

Hemoglobin A1c dropped in patient 1 from 8.6% at baseline to 6.9% at day 180, to a “remarkable” 5.2% at day 270. For patient 2, the drop was from 7.5% to a nadir of 6.4% by day 57, then reversing back to 7.1% at day 150.  

Both patients also had significant reductions in insulin dose. For patient 1, the dose reduction was more than 90% – from 34 units at baseline to 2.6 units by day 90. By day 210 he was able to stop insulin and by day 270 he met formal criteria for insulin independence.

Patient 2 also had a significant reduction in insulin dose, from 25.9 units to 18.7 by day 57 and remained stable thereafter, at 18.2 units by day 150.

Asked why Patient 2’s results weren’t quite as impressive as patient 1’s, Dr. Markmann replied “I think what’s important is that both patients did great. And since this was a half-dose, we might have expected that the outcome was going to be more like patient 2 rather than patient 1. So, I think we’re just going to have to [study this in] more patients to understand where it falls.” 

Although patient 1 experienced a cluster of six severe hypoglycemic events early in the posttransplant period, he had no further events after day 35. Patient 2 had no severe hypoglycemic events.

Other safety events were generally consistent with that seen with the immunosuppressive regimen in the perioperative period. Patient 1 had a “mild and self-limited” rise in liver function test and also experienced two severe adverse events: A rash from the immune suppression that resolved spontaneously, and dehydration requiring hospitalization on day 186. Patient 2’s adverse events were all mild to moderate, most commonly headache and hypomagnesemia and not related to VX-880.

Immunosuppression: Work is ongoing

The immunosuppression regimen used comprises a depletion of lymphocytes at induction, followed by a maintenance regimen of two standard agents used in kidney transplant patients and found to be well tolerated, Dr. Markmann said.

Still, the risk of immunosuppression generally outweighs the potential benefit for most people with type 1 diabetes who are managing reasonably well with insulin treatment.

“This is part one of a two-part problem. One is to have a reliable, consistent, effective cell therapy. The second is to develop an approach that doesn’t require immunosuppression. ... But if we had a way of transplanting the cells without the need for immunosuppression, then it could be really widely available. That’s an opportunity for the future since these cells can be made in unlimited quantities,” Dr. Markmann commented during the press briefing.

Asked for his thoughts about the immunosuppression aspect, Dr. Pragnell told this news organization: “Immune suppression is a concern, but I feel that this is just the start of so much research in this area. They’re going to take this step by step. This is just the start. My understanding is they have additional strategies around immune suppression, and in the future they might not even need immunosuppression. But even at this stage right now, it’s amazing.”

He added: “The ‘artificial pancreas’ is a huge step forward, but it’s just a bridge to a cure, whereas if they’re able to show safety and efficacy, this is potentially a cure. ... I’m very excited about it.”

Dr. Markmann serves on advisory boards for iTolerance, eGenesis, and QihanBio. He is a consultant to Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Pragnell is an ADA employee and has no further disclosures.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.

These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.

The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”

Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”

Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
 

Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’

In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.

“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.

Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
 

Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people

The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.

The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.

Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.

After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.

Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.

Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
 

Hypotheses for mechanisms

The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.

The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.

“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.

Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.

And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”

Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.

NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.

These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.

The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”

Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”

Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
 

Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’

In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.

“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.

Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
 

Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people

The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.

The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.

Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.

After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.

Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.

Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
 

Hypotheses for mechanisms

The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.

The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.

“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.

Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.

And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”

Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.

NEW ORLEANS – Obesity in adolescence is linked to an increased risk for type 1 diabetes onset in adulthood, new research suggests.

These new data, from Israeli military recruits followed for over a decade, suggest that obesity may be playing a causal role in type 1 as well as type 2 diabetes.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes has been increasing by about 2%-3% annually over recent decades, but the reasons aren’t clear. The study is the first to examine the role of obesity in adolescence and type 1 diabetes in young adulthood, and also the first to examine the question of using antibody status as part of the criteria for a type 1 diagnosis.

The findings were reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association by Gilad Twig, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Israel. “For people who might have a high risk for developing type 1 diabetes, these results emphasize the importance of maintaining a normal weight,” he said in an interview. He noted that, although this recommendation applies to everyone, “here it’s becoming more precise for the population – more individualized in the sense that this might specifically help you.”

Naveed Sattar, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview that carrying too much weight “will make the pancreas have to work harder to make insulin to keep the sugar normal. So, if you’re stressing the system and the pancreas is already likely to fail, it will fail faster.”

Clinically, Dr. Sattar said, “Lifestyle does matter to the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. The weighting may be different [from type 2]. The major factor in type 1 is still the genetics, but if you have a family history of type 1 and your genetic potential is greater, you will minimize your risk by staying leaner.”
 

Study highlights that type 1 is not always ‘juvenile’

In addition to countering the long-held belief that type 1 diabetes is primarily a condition of thin individuals and unrelated to obesity, the data also reinforce the emerging recognition that type 1 diabetes isn’t always “juvenile” and in fact often arises in adulthood.

“About half of all cases of type 1 diabetes develop after age 18. By reputation, people think it’s a disease of children. But it’s begun to grow so that now 50% of cases occur after late adolescence,” noted Dr. Twig.

Dr. Sattar pointed to a UK Biobank study showing that nearly half of all cases of type 1 diabetes arise after age 30 years. “You absolutely can get type 1 in adulthood. It’s not rare.”
 

Direct correlation seen in otherwise healthy young people

The retrospective nationwide cohort study included 1,426,362 17-year-olds (834,050 male and 592,312 female) who underwent medical evaluation prior to military conscription starting in January 1996 and followed them through 2016. At baseline, none had a history of dysglycemia.

The data were linked with information about adult-onset type 1 diabetes in the Israeli National Diabetes Registry. In all, 777 incident type 1 diabetes cases were recorded over the study period, with a rate of 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years.

Over a median follow-up of 11.2 years, there was a graded incidence of type 1 diabetes across BMI groups from underweight to obesity, from 3.6 to 8.4 cases per 100,000 person-years.

After adjustment for sex, birth year, age at study entry, education, and cognitive performance with BMI 5th-49th percentiles as the reference, the hazard ratios were 1.05 for the 50th-74th BMI percentiles, 1.41 for 75th-84th, 1.54 for those who were overweight, and 2.05 for those with obesity.

Every 5-unit increment in BMI corresponded to a 35% greater incidence of type 1 diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35) and every one increment was associated with a 35% greater risk (1.25), both values significant.

Sensitivity analyses resulted in similar findings for those with no other chronic health conditions at baseline. The results also didn’t change in a separate analysis of 574,720 subjects in whom autoantibody data were available to confirm the type 1 diabetes diagnosis.
 

Hypotheses for mechanisms

The mechanism for the association isn’t clear, but in a simultaneously published article in Diabetologia, Dr. Twig and colleagues outline several hypotheses. One relates to the growing evidence of a link between various autoimmune conditions, which point to the possibility of elevated adipokines and cytokines in obesity diminishing self-tolerance by promoting proinflammatory processes.

The authors cite data from the TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study of relatives of people with type 1 diabetes in which participants who were overweight and obese had an increased risk of islet autoantibody expression. However, not all data have supported this finding.

“Obesity is related to several other autoimmune conditions, so it’s not a complete surprise it might be related to another,” Dr. Twig noted.

Other possibilities include vitamin D deficiency, a high-fat diet, and alterations in gut microbiota.

And then there’s the “accelerator hypothesis,” suggesting that both type 1 and type 2 diabetes result from insulin resistance and genetic background that affect the rate of beta cell loss and the disease phenotype. Dr. Sattar said that the accelerator hypotheses “makes complete sense to me. Because the population is so obese, we’re seeing it more now whereas we might not have seen it 40 years ago when the BMI differentials were far less in society.”

Dr. Twig has no disclosures. Dr. Sattar has consulted for or received lecture fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and received grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics through his institution.

The full results on Lilly’s tirzepatide for obesity will likely dominate the headlines from the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, but the conference program is jam-packed with new findings – and new paradigms – in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes management and prevention.

Taking place June 3-7 both in person – for the first time in 3 years – in New Orleans, and virtually, the “hybrid” meeting is mandating COVID-19 vaccination and mask wearing for all on-site attendees.

CrackerClips/Thinkstock

A major topic will be new findings and thinking in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, including the new twincretin tirzepatide, as well as discussions about the role of weight loss and the concept of “remission.” In type 1 diabetes, sessions will examine intervention trials to prevent progression, progress in islet transplantation, and the latest findings in diabetes technology.

Other key conference themes include the often interrelated topics of disparities, mental health, and COVID-19.

“I think that the scientific planning committee has put together a really outstanding program this year, covering the entire spectrum of diabetes care and research and translation for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Scientific Planning Committee Chair Dana Dabelea, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, told this news organization.
 

Tirzepatide: The next big thing?

The presentation likely to generate the most buzz will take place Saturday morning, with the full detailed results from Lilly’s phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 trial of its dual-incretin tirzepatide for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight with at least one comorbidity but not diabetes.

Top-line results released by Lilly in April 2022 showed that the drug induced weight loss of up to 22%. Tirzepatide was approved May 13 by the Food and Drug Administration for type 2 diabetes under the brand name Mounjaro. It is not approved for weight loss.  

“Certainly the general public will latch on to this idea that there is a drug they can lose 22% of their weight on,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief science and medical officer, told this news organization. “It’s hard to comment on a press release, so that’s why this presentation is going to be key.”

Another tirzepatide analysis, this one comparing its use to insulin glargine on kidney outcomes in participants with diabetes in the pivotal SURPASS-4 study, will be presented as an ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract on Friday afternoon.

“I think tirzepatide could be the great new thing, but I think we need to know a little bit more. Weight loss seems to be better than with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Renal outcomes are important. Next will be to see if it has cardiovascular benefit. It makes one think about its use versus GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Gabbay said.
 

Managing type 2 diabetes: Shifting paradigms

With the emergence of tirzepatide and other pharmacologic agents with benefits beyond glucose lowering, there has been much discussion in recent years about alternatives to the current metformin monotherapy first, stepwise approach to managing type 2 diabetes.

As has been done previously, on Monday afternoon, there will be a joint ADA/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) session during which a draft of the latest update will be presented on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. The final version will be presented at the EASD meeting in September.

While it won’t include tirzepatide, as the drug is not yet approved in Europe, there will be discussion about the role of weight loss goals in type 2 diabetes management, Dr. Gabbay said.

The concept of a 15% weight loss as a primary treatment goal of type 2 diabetes management is a new focus, initiated at the EASD 2021 annual meeting and published in The Lancet.

“With tirzepatide becoming available, there’s the opportunity for more significant weight loss. So, there’s been this debate, starting with the somewhat controversial opinion piece in Lancet ... Maybe it was stating things a bit too far but it certainly got everyone in the field thinking. You’ll see that come up in lots of places at this meeting,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Indeed, those sessions include a Sunday morning symposium titled: “Obesity Management as a Primary Treatment Goal for Type 2 Diabetes – It’s Time for a Paradigm Shift,” in which speakers will address both lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. On Saturday afternoon, two speakers will debate the question: “Weighing the Evidence – Should Obesity Be the Primary Target of Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes?” Yet another session on Sunday afternoon, will cover “Incorporating Weight Management Strategies for Obesity Into Type 2 Diabetes Care – Medical Management and Surgery.”

 

From weight loss to type 2 diabetes ‘remission’?

Related to the issue of weight loss as first-line therapy is the concept of type 2 diabetes “remission.” “There is a school of thought that says early in the course of disease we probably want to be a lot more aggressive because there’s a greater chance of putting someone into remission,” Dr. Gabbay noted. “The opportunities for remission after someone has had diabetes for a number of years are relatively low.” 

In September 2021, ADA, along with EASD, the Endocrine Society, and Diabetes UK, published a joint consensus statement aiming to standardize use of the term “remission” in type 2 diabetes.  

At the ADA meeting, a symposium on Monday afternoon, titled, “Definition and Interpretation of Remission in Type 2 Diabetes,” will cover lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, and metabolic surgery approaches. One noteworthy talk in that session will address the question: “Can Type 2 Diabetes Remission Be Diagnosed While Glucose-Lowering Drugs Are Being Used?”

Asked how all of this – tirzepatide, weight loss, and “remission” – might play out clinically, Dr. Dabelea replied: “We are still debating the strategy. That’s why we’re having the scientific talks.

“I think they will be very interesting and very well-attended, but there isn’t a strategy yet ... The important thing is we have these ‘miracle drugs,’ if you want, and once we’ve learned all we need to know about how they act and who we should target, perhaps next year we can talk about a strategy.”
 

Type 1 diabetes: Progress in preventing, treating, and ... curing?

Type 1 diabetes also will be well represented at the conference, with topics covering prevention, treatment, and progress toward a cure. On Saturday afternoon, a symposium will cover data from a trial of low-dose IL-2 in people with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes, while a Friday afternoon symposium will address “Emerging Approaches to Beta Cell Replacement.”

On Saturday afternoon, a symposium will provide an update on islet cell transplantation, including immune tolerance strategies, while an oral abstract session will cover “Clinical Outcomes in Islet and Pancreas Transplantation.” And on Monday afternoon, yet another symposium will examine “Emerging Data on Therapies to Treat the Underlying Autoimmunity in Type 1 Diabetes.”

As usual, there will also be numerous presentations on the latest in diabetes technology. Particularly noteworthy among these will be an oral abstract presentation on Monday afternoon, “The CREATE Trial: Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery With Sensor Augmented Pump Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes,” and results from the insulin-only “bionic pancreas” pivotal randomized clinical trial on Friday afternoon.   

“I’m happy to see a plethora of studies in type 1 diabetes. Dr. Dabelea said. “As with tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, we are witnessing discoveries and we need to have some time to really understand the results, understand who are they targeting, who is going to benefit, and then move into a strategy.”

However, she added, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, “we’re seeing these disparities [where] these novel technologies and therapeutics are not getting to the people who need them most,” which brings up another major meeting theme, health disparities.
 

Overlapping themes: Disparities, mental health, and COVID-19

The topics of health disparities in diabetes prevention, management, and care and promoting health equity, as well as the impact of COVID-19, are “certainly timely this year,” said Dr. Dabelea.

At least eight meeting sessions will address various aspects of disparity, including a Friday afternoon symposium, “Race, Racism, and Diabetes Research,” a Saturday morning oral presentation on “Mitigating Disparities in the Screening and Diagnosis of Diabetes,” and on Monday morning, the symposium “Disparities in the Use of Diabetes Medications and Technologies.”

A related topic, insulin access, will be addressed in a Friday morning “mini-symposium” that will cover the issue from U.S. and international perspectives, including humanitarian crisis situations. Related to that, on Sunday afternoon a panel will discuss the Ukraine situation specifically.

Regarding mental health, one noteworthy session is a symposium on Saturday afternoon: “Suicide and Self-Injury – Unveiling and Addressing the Hidden Nightmare in Diabetes.”

“It’s an underrecognized problem and we’ve devoted a symposium to really drill into it. I think that’s going to be an important story for all of us to think about,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Another mental health session on Saturday afternoon will examine “Stigma in Diabetes Care – Evidence and Solutions.” Dr. Dabelea noted, “Mental health is a rising concern in the United States, especially in people with chronic diseases in the wake of the pandemic ... Of course there’s overlap in mechanisms in type 1 and type 2, but I think there are also distinct pathways.”  

COVID-19 will be somewhat less of a focus than in the past 2 years, but there will certainly still be plenty about it. A Friday morning mini-symposium will cover new findings in pathophysiology, another session on Monday afternoon will look at the impact of the pandemic on hypoglycemia risk, and COVID-19 will be the subject of several late-breaking posters on Sunday afternoon. One in particular will report a review of diabetes as a risk factor for long COVID.
 

Celebrating in person in the Big Easy

But unlike the past 2 years, COVID-19 has not kept ADA from meeting in person in 2022. “I think it’s going to be amazing ... We’re so excited to be in person and interacting,” Dr. Gabbay said.

He observed that virtual meetings – as ADA and most other medical societies have been forced into for the past 2 years during the pandemic – fail to capture “how science is advanced by the casual conversations in the hallway and collaborations and new ideas. It’s really this incredible incubator. For me, that’s the most exciting part.”

The location, New Orleans, also factors into his excitement: “What a great place to do this. It’s conducive to celebrating. It’s been a long couple of years.” 

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

The full results on Lilly’s tirzepatide for obesity will likely dominate the headlines from the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, but the conference program is jam-packed with new findings – and new paradigms – in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes management and prevention.

Taking place June 3-7 both in person – for the first time in 3 years – in New Orleans, and virtually, the “hybrid” meeting is mandating COVID-19 vaccination and mask wearing for all on-site attendees.

CrackerClips/Thinkstock

A major topic will be new findings and thinking in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, including the new twincretin tirzepatide, as well as discussions about the role of weight loss and the concept of “remission.” In type 1 diabetes, sessions will examine intervention trials to prevent progression, progress in islet transplantation, and the latest findings in diabetes technology.

Other key conference themes include the often interrelated topics of disparities, mental health, and COVID-19.

“I think that the scientific planning committee has put together a really outstanding program this year, covering the entire spectrum of diabetes care and research and translation for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Scientific Planning Committee Chair Dana Dabelea, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, told this news organization.
 

Tirzepatide: The next big thing?

The presentation likely to generate the most buzz will take place Saturday morning, with the full detailed results from Lilly’s phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 trial of its dual-incretin tirzepatide for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight with at least one comorbidity but not diabetes.

Top-line results released by Lilly in April 2022 showed that the drug induced weight loss of up to 22%. Tirzepatide was approved May 13 by the Food and Drug Administration for type 2 diabetes under the brand name Mounjaro. It is not approved for weight loss.  

“Certainly the general public will latch on to this idea that there is a drug they can lose 22% of their weight on,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief science and medical officer, told this news organization. “It’s hard to comment on a press release, so that’s why this presentation is going to be key.”

Another tirzepatide analysis, this one comparing its use to insulin glargine on kidney outcomes in participants with diabetes in the pivotal SURPASS-4 study, will be presented as an ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract on Friday afternoon.

“I think tirzepatide could be the great new thing, but I think we need to know a little bit more. Weight loss seems to be better than with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Renal outcomes are important. Next will be to see if it has cardiovascular benefit. It makes one think about its use versus GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Gabbay said.
 

Managing type 2 diabetes: Shifting paradigms

With the emergence of tirzepatide and other pharmacologic agents with benefits beyond glucose lowering, there has been much discussion in recent years about alternatives to the current metformin monotherapy first, stepwise approach to managing type 2 diabetes.

As has been done previously, on Monday afternoon, there will be a joint ADA/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) session during which a draft of the latest update will be presented on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. The final version will be presented at the EASD meeting in September.

While it won’t include tirzepatide, as the drug is not yet approved in Europe, there will be discussion about the role of weight loss goals in type 2 diabetes management, Dr. Gabbay said.

The concept of a 15% weight loss as a primary treatment goal of type 2 diabetes management is a new focus, initiated at the EASD 2021 annual meeting and published in The Lancet.

“With tirzepatide becoming available, there’s the opportunity for more significant weight loss. So, there’s been this debate, starting with the somewhat controversial opinion piece in Lancet ... Maybe it was stating things a bit too far but it certainly got everyone in the field thinking. You’ll see that come up in lots of places at this meeting,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Indeed, those sessions include a Sunday morning symposium titled: “Obesity Management as a Primary Treatment Goal for Type 2 Diabetes – It’s Time for a Paradigm Shift,” in which speakers will address both lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. On Saturday afternoon, two speakers will debate the question: “Weighing the Evidence – Should Obesity Be the Primary Target of Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes?” Yet another session on Sunday afternoon, will cover “Incorporating Weight Management Strategies for Obesity Into Type 2 Diabetes Care – Medical Management and Surgery.”

 

From weight loss to type 2 diabetes ‘remission’?

Related to the issue of weight loss as first-line therapy is the concept of type 2 diabetes “remission.” “There is a school of thought that says early in the course of disease we probably want to be a lot more aggressive because there’s a greater chance of putting someone into remission,” Dr. Gabbay noted. “The opportunities for remission after someone has had diabetes for a number of years are relatively low.” 

In September 2021, ADA, along with EASD, the Endocrine Society, and Diabetes UK, published a joint consensus statement aiming to standardize use of the term “remission” in type 2 diabetes.  

At the ADA meeting, a symposium on Monday afternoon, titled, “Definition and Interpretation of Remission in Type 2 Diabetes,” will cover lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, and metabolic surgery approaches. One noteworthy talk in that session will address the question: “Can Type 2 Diabetes Remission Be Diagnosed While Glucose-Lowering Drugs Are Being Used?”

Asked how all of this – tirzepatide, weight loss, and “remission” – might play out clinically, Dr. Dabelea replied: “We are still debating the strategy. That’s why we’re having the scientific talks.

“I think they will be very interesting and very well-attended, but there isn’t a strategy yet ... The important thing is we have these ‘miracle drugs,’ if you want, and once we’ve learned all we need to know about how they act and who we should target, perhaps next year we can talk about a strategy.”
 

Type 1 diabetes: Progress in preventing, treating, and ... curing?

Type 1 diabetes also will be well represented at the conference, with topics covering prevention, treatment, and progress toward a cure. On Saturday afternoon, a symposium will cover data from a trial of low-dose IL-2 in people with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes, while a Friday afternoon symposium will address “Emerging Approaches to Beta Cell Replacement.”

On Saturday afternoon, a symposium will provide an update on islet cell transplantation, including immune tolerance strategies, while an oral abstract session will cover “Clinical Outcomes in Islet and Pancreas Transplantation.” And on Monday afternoon, yet another symposium will examine “Emerging Data on Therapies to Treat the Underlying Autoimmunity in Type 1 Diabetes.”

As usual, there will also be numerous presentations on the latest in diabetes technology. Particularly noteworthy among these will be an oral abstract presentation on Monday afternoon, “The CREATE Trial: Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery With Sensor Augmented Pump Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes,” and results from the insulin-only “bionic pancreas” pivotal randomized clinical trial on Friday afternoon.   

“I’m happy to see a plethora of studies in type 1 diabetes. Dr. Dabelea said. “As with tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, we are witnessing discoveries and we need to have some time to really understand the results, understand who are they targeting, who is going to benefit, and then move into a strategy.”

However, she added, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, “we’re seeing these disparities [where] these novel technologies and therapeutics are not getting to the people who need them most,” which brings up another major meeting theme, health disparities.
 

Overlapping themes: Disparities, mental health, and COVID-19

The topics of health disparities in diabetes prevention, management, and care and promoting health equity, as well as the impact of COVID-19, are “certainly timely this year,” said Dr. Dabelea.

At least eight meeting sessions will address various aspects of disparity, including a Friday afternoon symposium, “Race, Racism, and Diabetes Research,” a Saturday morning oral presentation on “Mitigating Disparities in the Screening and Diagnosis of Diabetes,” and on Monday morning, the symposium “Disparities in the Use of Diabetes Medications and Technologies.”

A related topic, insulin access, will be addressed in a Friday morning “mini-symposium” that will cover the issue from U.S. and international perspectives, including humanitarian crisis situations. Related to that, on Sunday afternoon a panel will discuss the Ukraine situation specifically.

Regarding mental health, one noteworthy session is a symposium on Saturday afternoon: “Suicide and Self-Injury – Unveiling and Addressing the Hidden Nightmare in Diabetes.”

“It’s an underrecognized problem and we’ve devoted a symposium to really drill into it. I think that’s going to be an important story for all of us to think about,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Another mental health session on Saturday afternoon will examine “Stigma in Diabetes Care – Evidence and Solutions.” Dr. Dabelea noted, “Mental health is a rising concern in the United States, especially in people with chronic diseases in the wake of the pandemic ... Of course there’s overlap in mechanisms in type 1 and type 2, but I think there are also distinct pathways.”  

COVID-19 will be somewhat less of a focus than in the past 2 years, but there will certainly still be plenty about it. A Friday morning mini-symposium will cover new findings in pathophysiology, another session on Monday afternoon will look at the impact of the pandemic on hypoglycemia risk, and COVID-19 will be the subject of several late-breaking posters on Sunday afternoon. One in particular will report a review of diabetes as a risk factor for long COVID.
 

Celebrating in person in the Big Easy

But unlike the past 2 years, COVID-19 has not kept ADA from meeting in person in 2022. “I think it’s going to be amazing ... We’re so excited to be in person and interacting,” Dr. Gabbay said.

He observed that virtual meetings – as ADA and most other medical societies have been forced into for the past 2 years during the pandemic – fail to capture “how science is advanced by the casual conversations in the hallway and collaborations and new ideas. It’s really this incredible incubator. For me, that’s the most exciting part.”

The location, New Orleans, also factors into his excitement: “What a great place to do this. It’s conducive to celebrating. It’s been a long couple of years.” 

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

The full results on Lilly’s tirzepatide for obesity will likely dominate the headlines from the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, but the conference program is jam-packed with new findings – and new paradigms – in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes management and prevention.

Taking place June 3-7 both in person – for the first time in 3 years – in New Orleans, and virtually, the “hybrid” meeting is mandating COVID-19 vaccination and mask wearing for all on-site attendees.

CrackerClips/Thinkstock

A major topic will be new findings and thinking in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, including the new twincretin tirzepatide, as well as discussions about the role of weight loss and the concept of “remission.” In type 1 diabetes, sessions will examine intervention trials to prevent progression, progress in islet transplantation, and the latest findings in diabetes technology.

Other key conference themes include the often interrelated topics of disparities, mental health, and COVID-19.

“I think that the scientific planning committee has put together a really outstanding program this year, covering the entire spectrum of diabetes care and research and translation for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Scientific Planning Committee Chair Dana Dabelea, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and pediatrics at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, told this news organization.
 

Tirzepatide: The next big thing?

The presentation likely to generate the most buzz will take place Saturday morning, with the full detailed results from Lilly’s phase 3 SURMOUNT-1 trial of its dual-incretin tirzepatide for weight loss in people with obesity or overweight with at least one comorbidity but not diabetes.

Top-line results released by Lilly in April 2022 showed that the drug induced weight loss of up to 22%. Tirzepatide was approved May 13 by the Food and Drug Administration for type 2 diabetes under the brand name Mounjaro. It is not approved for weight loss.  

“Certainly the general public will latch on to this idea that there is a drug they can lose 22% of their weight on,” Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, ADA chief science and medical officer, told this news organization. “It’s hard to comment on a press release, so that’s why this presentation is going to be key.”

Another tirzepatide analysis, this one comparing its use to insulin glargine on kidney outcomes in participants with diabetes in the pivotal SURPASS-4 study, will be presented as an ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract on Friday afternoon.

“I think tirzepatide could be the great new thing, but I think we need to know a little bit more. Weight loss seems to be better than with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Renal outcomes are important. Next will be to see if it has cardiovascular benefit. It makes one think about its use versus GLP-1 agonists,” Dr. Gabbay said.
 

Managing type 2 diabetes: Shifting paradigms

With the emergence of tirzepatide and other pharmacologic agents with benefits beyond glucose lowering, there has been much discussion in recent years about alternatives to the current metformin monotherapy first, stepwise approach to managing type 2 diabetes.

As has been done previously, on Monday afternoon, there will be a joint ADA/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) session during which a draft of the latest update will be presented on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. The final version will be presented at the EASD meeting in September.

While it won’t include tirzepatide, as the drug is not yet approved in Europe, there will be discussion about the role of weight loss goals in type 2 diabetes management, Dr. Gabbay said.

The concept of a 15% weight loss as a primary treatment goal of type 2 diabetes management is a new focus, initiated at the EASD 2021 annual meeting and published in The Lancet.

“With tirzepatide becoming available, there’s the opportunity for more significant weight loss. So, there’s been this debate, starting with the somewhat controversial opinion piece in Lancet ... Maybe it was stating things a bit too far but it certainly got everyone in the field thinking. You’ll see that come up in lots of places at this meeting,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Indeed, those sessions include a Sunday morning symposium titled: “Obesity Management as a Primary Treatment Goal for Type 2 Diabetes – It’s Time for a Paradigm Shift,” in which speakers will address both lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. On Saturday afternoon, two speakers will debate the question: “Weighing the Evidence – Should Obesity Be the Primary Target of Treatment in Type 2 Diabetes?” Yet another session on Sunday afternoon, will cover “Incorporating Weight Management Strategies for Obesity Into Type 2 Diabetes Care – Medical Management and Surgery.”

 

From weight loss to type 2 diabetes ‘remission’?

Related to the issue of weight loss as first-line therapy is the concept of type 2 diabetes “remission.” “There is a school of thought that says early in the course of disease we probably want to be a lot more aggressive because there’s a greater chance of putting someone into remission,” Dr. Gabbay noted. “The opportunities for remission after someone has had diabetes for a number of years are relatively low.” 

In September 2021, ADA, along with EASD, the Endocrine Society, and Diabetes UK, published a joint consensus statement aiming to standardize use of the term “remission” in type 2 diabetes.  

At the ADA meeting, a symposium on Monday afternoon, titled, “Definition and Interpretation of Remission in Type 2 Diabetes,” will cover lifestyle, pharmacotherapy, and metabolic surgery approaches. One noteworthy talk in that session will address the question: “Can Type 2 Diabetes Remission Be Diagnosed While Glucose-Lowering Drugs Are Being Used?”

Asked how all of this – tirzepatide, weight loss, and “remission” – might play out clinically, Dr. Dabelea replied: “We are still debating the strategy. That’s why we’re having the scientific talks.

“I think they will be very interesting and very well-attended, but there isn’t a strategy yet ... The important thing is we have these ‘miracle drugs,’ if you want, and once we’ve learned all we need to know about how they act and who we should target, perhaps next year we can talk about a strategy.”
 

Type 1 diabetes: Progress in preventing, treating, and ... curing?

Type 1 diabetes also will be well represented at the conference, with topics covering prevention, treatment, and progress toward a cure. On Saturday afternoon, a symposium will cover data from a trial of low-dose IL-2 in people with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes, while a Friday afternoon symposium will address “Emerging Approaches to Beta Cell Replacement.”

On Saturday afternoon, a symposium will provide an update on islet cell transplantation, including immune tolerance strategies, while an oral abstract session will cover “Clinical Outcomes in Islet and Pancreas Transplantation.” And on Monday afternoon, yet another symposium will examine “Emerging Data on Therapies to Treat the Underlying Autoimmunity in Type 1 Diabetes.”

As usual, there will also be numerous presentations on the latest in diabetes technology. Particularly noteworthy among these will be an oral abstract presentation on Monday afternoon, “The CREATE Trial: Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery With Sensor Augmented Pump Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes,” and results from the insulin-only “bionic pancreas” pivotal randomized clinical trial on Friday afternoon.   

“I’m happy to see a plethora of studies in type 1 diabetes. Dr. Dabelea said. “As with tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes, we are witnessing discoveries and we need to have some time to really understand the results, understand who are they targeting, who is going to benefit, and then move into a strategy.”

However, she added, in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, “we’re seeing these disparities [where] these novel technologies and therapeutics are not getting to the people who need them most,” which brings up another major meeting theme, health disparities.
 

Overlapping themes: Disparities, mental health, and COVID-19

The topics of health disparities in diabetes prevention, management, and care and promoting health equity, as well as the impact of COVID-19, are “certainly timely this year,” said Dr. Dabelea.

At least eight meeting sessions will address various aspects of disparity, including a Friday afternoon symposium, “Race, Racism, and Diabetes Research,” a Saturday morning oral presentation on “Mitigating Disparities in the Screening and Diagnosis of Diabetes,” and on Monday morning, the symposium “Disparities in the Use of Diabetes Medications and Technologies.”

A related topic, insulin access, will be addressed in a Friday morning “mini-symposium” that will cover the issue from U.S. and international perspectives, including humanitarian crisis situations. Related to that, on Sunday afternoon a panel will discuss the Ukraine situation specifically.

Regarding mental health, one noteworthy session is a symposium on Saturday afternoon: “Suicide and Self-Injury – Unveiling and Addressing the Hidden Nightmare in Diabetes.”

“It’s an underrecognized problem and we’ve devoted a symposium to really drill into it. I think that’s going to be an important story for all of us to think about,” Dr. Gabbay said.

Another mental health session on Saturday afternoon will examine “Stigma in Diabetes Care – Evidence and Solutions.” Dr. Dabelea noted, “Mental health is a rising concern in the United States, especially in people with chronic diseases in the wake of the pandemic ... Of course there’s overlap in mechanisms in type 1 and type 2, but I think there are also distinct pathways.”  

COVID-19 will be somewhat less of a focus than in the past 2 years, but there will certainly still be plenty about it. A Friday morning mini-symposium will cover new findings in pathophysiology, another session on Monday afternoon will look at the impact of the pandemic on hypoglycemia risk, and COVID-19 will be the subject of several late-breaking posters on Sunday afternoon. One in particular will report a review of diabetes as a risk factor for long COVID.
 

Celebrating in person in the Big Easy

But unlike the past 2 years, COVID-19 has not kept ADA from meeting in person in 2022. “I think it’s going to be amazing ... We’re so excited to be in person and interacting,” Dr. Gabbay said.

He observed that virtual meetings – as ADA and most other medical societies have been forced into for the past 2 years during the pandemic – fail to capture “how science is advanced by the casual conversations in the hallway and collaborations and new ideas. It’s really this incredible incubator. For me, that’s the most exciting part.”

The location, New Orleans, also factors into his excitement: “What a great place to do this. It’s conducive to celebrating. It’s been a long couple of years.” 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbot’s Freestyle Libre 3 system for use by people aged 4 years and older with diabetes.

The new system was cleared for use for both iOS- and Android-compatible mobile apps, enabling real-time glucose readings in contrast to the “intermittently scanned” capability of prior Libre versions. The Libre 3 allows for optional alarms and notifications of urgent low or high glucose levels, as well as remote monitoring by health care professionals or the patient’s family members and/or friends.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 was granted a CE Mark in Europe in October 2020.

Smaller, thinner, and better integration

According to Abbott, the Libre 3 is the first continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to show a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of less than 8% compared with a gold-standard glucose measure. The average Libre 3 MARD is 7.9%, compared with 9.3% for the Libre 2. The Libre 3 is also the “smallest and thinnest” CGM, roughly the size of two stacked U.S. pennies, worn on the upper arm.

And, the company said, the Libre 3 has a Bluetooth integration of up to 33 feet, a range 50% further than other CGMs.   

This version follows the FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in June 2020, and its compatible iPhone app, approved in August 2021.

The Libre 3 will be priced the same as the Libre 2, at about one-third the cost of other CGM systems. However, it is not currently eligible for Medicare reimbursement. Medicaid eligibility may vary by state.

“I applaud Abbott for making their CGM system the most affordable and addressing disparities in care so patients living with diabetes can avoid complications and optimize their quality of life,” Eugene E. Wright Jr., MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an Abbott statement.

“I have seen real-world evidence that diabetes technologies like CGMs have helped my patients safely achieve improved glycemic control,” he said.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor will be available at participating pharmacies later this year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbot’s Freestyle Libre 3 system for use by people aged 4 years and older with diabetes.

The new system was cleared for use for both iOS- and Android-compatible mobile apps, enabling real-time glucose readings in contrast to the “intermittently scanned” capability of prior Libre versions. The Libre 3 allows for optional alarms and notifications of urgent low or high glucose levels, as well as remote monitoring by health care professionals or the patient’s family members and/or friends.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 was granted a CE Mark in Europe in October 2020.

Smaller, thinner, and better integration

According to Abbott, the Libre 3 is the first continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to show a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of less than 8% compared with a gold-standard glucose measure. The average Libre 3 MARD is 7.9%, compared with 9.3% for the Libre 2. The Libre 3 is also the “smallest and thinnest” CGM, roughly the size of two stacked U.S. pennies, worn on the upper arm.

And, the company said, the Libre 3 has a Bluetooth integration of up to 33 feet, a range 50% further than other CGMs.   

This version follows the FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in June 2020, and its compatible iPhone app, approved in August 2021.

The Libre 3 will be priced the same as the Libre 2, at about one-third the cost of other CGM systems. However, it is not currently eligible for Medicare reimbursement. Medicaid eligibility may vary by state.

“I applaud Abbott for making their CGM system the most affordable and addressing disparities in care so patients living with diabetes can avoid complications and optimize their quality of life,” Eugene E. Wright Jr., MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an Abbott statement.

“I have seen real-world evidence that diabetes technologies like CGMs have helped my patients safely achieve improved glycemic control,” he said.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor will be available at participating pharmacies later this year.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared Abbot’s Freestyle Libre 3 system for use by people aged 4 years and older with diabetes.

The new system was cleared for use for both iOS- and Android-compatible mobile apps, enabling real-time glucose readings in contrast to the “intermittently scanned” capability of prior Libre versions. The Libre 3 allows for optional alarms and notifications of urgent low or high glucose levels, as well as remote monitoring by health care professionals or the patient’s family members and/or friends.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 was granted a CE Mark in Europe in October 2020.

Smaller, thinner, and better integration

According to Abbott, the Libre 3 is the first continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system to show a mean absolute relative difference (MARD) of less than 8% compared with a gold-standard glucose measure. The average Libre 3 MARD is 7.9%, compared with 9.3% for the Libre 2. The Libre 3 is also the “smallest and thinnest” CGM, roughly the size of two stacked U.S. pennies, worn on the upper arm.

And, the company said, the Libre 3 has a Bluetooth integration of up to 33 feet, a range 50% further than other CGMs.   

This version follows the FreeStyle Libre 2, approved in June 2020, and its compatible iPhone app, approved in August 2021.

The Libre 3 will be priced the same as the Libre 2, at about one-third the cost of other CGM systems. However, it is not currently eligible for Medicare reimbursement. Medicaid eligibility may vary by state.

“I applaud Abbott for making their CGM system the most affordable and addressing disparities in care so patients living with diabetes can avoid complications and optimize their quality of life,” Eugene E. Wright Jr., MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an Abbott statement.

“I have seen real-world evidence that diabetes technologies like CGMs have helped my patients safely achieve improved glycemic control,” he said.

The FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor will be available at participating pharmacies later this year.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors rather than metformin as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes appears to cut the risk for heart failure hospitalization but not myocardial infarction, stroke, or all-cause mortality, a new analysis of real-world data suggests.

Safety findings were similar, except for the fact that genital infections were more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors.

The study was conducted using claims data from two large U.S. insurance databases and Medicare. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences.

The study was conducted by HoJin Shin, BPharm, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. The findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Those who start SGLT-2 inhibitors as first line show similar risks, compared with metformin in MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality outcomes. Strikingly and consistently, SGLT-2 inhibitors show lower risk for hospitalization for heart failure, which is consistent with the findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.
 

Just a beginning step, although trial probably wasn’t long enough

However, she added, “I don’t want to overstate anything. ... We aren’t powered enough to investigate who would benefit the most. ... As a pharmacoepidemiologist, I think it’s my duty to provide high-quality evidence so we can actually help physicians and patients make better decisions on their medication. Our current research is just a beginning step.”

Asked to comment, Simeon I. Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “This study generally confirmed conclusions from published RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. No real surprises, albeit the conclusions may not fully support some of the most enthusiastic claims for SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death.”

Indeed, Dr. Taylor noted that only two SGLT-2 inhibitors, canagliflozin and empagliflozin, were shown to have a statistically significant association with decreased major adverse cardiovascular events.

In contrast, neither dapagliflozin nor ertugliflozin showed significant benefit regarding those outcomes.

He also pointed out that those four major SLGT-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials were placebo-controlled rather than head-to-head trials in which they were compared to an active comparator such as metformin.

“Viewed in this light, it’s probably not surprising that the present study did not demonstrate a robust benefit for SGLT-2 inhibitors to decrease [major adverse CV events].”

The duration of follow-up in the current study is also a limitation, he added.

“The majority of patients were followed for a year or less. This is probably sufficient to assess the impact of some pharmacological mechanisms, for example, the beneficial impact to decrease risk of heart failure by promoting urinary sodium excretion. However, it’s probably insufficient time to observe a beneficial impact on atherosclerosis. For example, there is typically a lag of several years before statins demonstrate efficacy with respect to adverse cardiovascular events.”

Nevertheless, he said, “it provides strong support for benefit with respect to decreasing risk of hospitalization for heart failure.”

He noted that while metformin is currently significantly cheaper than any SGLT-2 inhibitors, once the latter become available as generics, they will be cheaper, and this will likely have a bearing on prescribing decisions.

“Availability of generic SGLT-2 inhibitors offers potential to transform prescribing patterns for type 2 diabetes,” he noted.

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors versus metformin: Most outcomes similar

The study data came from two commercial U.S. health insurance databases, Optum Clinfomatics Data Mart and IBM Marketscan, and from Medicare fee-for-service enrollees.

From April 2013 through March 2020, a total of 9,334 patients began treatment with first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors; 819,973 patients began taking metformin. After 1:2 propensity score matching for confounders, there were 8,613 participants in the SGLT-2 inhibitor group and 17,226 in the group that began treatment with metformin.

The mean follow-up times were 10.7 months for patients taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and 12.2 months for patients taking metformin.

Incidence rates per 1,000 person-years for the composite of hospitalization for MI, hospitalization for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or all-cause mortality (MI/stroke/mortality) were 15.0 versus 16.2 for SLGT-2 inhibitors versus metformin, not a significant difference (hazard ratio, 0.96).

However, for the composite of heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the rates were 18.3 versus 23.5, a significant difference, with an HR of 0.80. The benefit was seen beginning at about 6 months.

Compared with metformin, SGLT-2 inhibitors showed a significantly lower risk for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.78), a numerically (but not significantly) lower risk for MI (HR, 0.70), and similar risks for stroke, mortality, and MI/stroke/HHF/mortality.

Genital infections were significantly more common with SGLT-2 inhibitors (54.1 vs. 23.7 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 2.19). Other safety measures were similar, including acute kidney injury, bone fractures, severe hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower-limb amputations.
 

How does cost factor in?

A sensitivity analysis aimed at examining the possible effect of unmeasured socioeconomic status showed no difference in cardiovascular benefit for first-line SGLT-2 inhibitors and metformin, compared with first-line dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which cost more than metformin; it is not known what effect DPP-4 inhibitors have on the cardiovascular outcomes of interest.

Cost and insurance coverage factor into the benefit/risk calculation. Metformin is far less costly than any of the SGLT-2 inhibitors – roughly $10 to $20 per month, compared with more than $500 a month.

However, “for some fortunate patients with the most generous pharmacy benefit insurance coverage, the out-of-pocket cost of brand name drugs like SGLT-2 inhibitors is substantially lower,” Dr. Taylor noted.

He said that the current study “raises questions about whether the clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors as initial monotherapy justify the higher price relative to metformin. The data in this paper suggest that the value case for SGLT-2 inhibitors is strongest for patients with the greatest risk to be hospitalized for heart failure.”

Indeed, Dr. Shin said, “Once we get more information, it may just help in extending the coverage from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, to lower the barrier to access.”

Dr. Taylor reiterated that patents on some of the early SGLT-2 inhibitors are expected to expire in the next few years, which would make it possible for generic versions to be approved. “At that point, prices would likely fall, possibly to levels similar to metformin.”

The study was funded by grant support from the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, department of medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, the National Institute on Aging, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr. Shin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor is a consultant for Ionis Pharmaceuticals.

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

Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.

The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.

The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.

Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.

However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... The preventive effect of eldecalcitol on development of type 2 diabetes in a prediabetic population was seen especially among participants with insulin insufficiency,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
 

‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials

The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”

The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.

But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.  

Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.

“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.  

He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”

Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D

Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”

He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”

Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
 

DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance

The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.

During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).

However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).

In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).

“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.

Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.

The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.

The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.

Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.

However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... The preventive effect of eldecalcitol on development of type 2 diabetes in a prediabetic population was seen especially among participants with insulin insufficiency,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
 

‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials

The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”

The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.

But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.  

Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.

“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.  

He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”

Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D

Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”

He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”

Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
 

DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance

The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.

During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).

However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).

In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).

“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.

Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Yet another study has found that vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the general population with prediabetes, but it does leave the door open for benefit in those with low insulin secretion.

The new findings come from the prospective Diabetes Prevention With Active Vitamin D (DPVD) trial of more than 1,200 Japanese participants with impaired glucose tolerance.

The data were published online in The BMJ by Tetsuya Kawahara, MD, PhD, of Shin Komonji Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, and colleagues.

Treatment with 0.75 μg/day of eldecalcitol, an active vitamin D analogue, for 3 years did not prevent progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes, nor did it improve the rate of regression to normoglycemia, compared with placebo.

However, “we showed a preventive effect of eldecalcitol after adjusting for covariables ... The preventive effect of eldecalcitol on development of type 2 diabetes in a prediabetic population was seen especially among participants with insulin insufficiency,” wrote Dr. Kawahara and colleagues.
 

‘Remarkably similar’ results in several trials

The new trial is “well conducted, with rigorously defined and tested diagnostic criteria, and of sufficient duration, but it may have been underpowered to detect a small effect,” Tatiana Christides, MD, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Christides notes that a recent meta-analysis of intervention trials did find a significant 10% reduction in risk of type 2 diabetes with vitamin D supplementation, “a difference too small to be detected by the new trial ... Although a 10% risk reduction is modest, it may be valuable at the population level and justifies further study.”

The new finding, a nonsignificant 13% relative reduction in risk, is similar to the 13% relative risk reduction found in the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) trial reported in 2019.

But in that study as in this one, there was a suggested benefit in a subset of people. In D2d, it was in those who were vitamin D deficient.  

Asked to comment, D2d lead investigator Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, chief of the division of diabetes, endocrinology, and metabolism at Tufts University, Boston, pointed out that the results were also “remarkably similar” to those of a third study from Norway published in 2014, which also found a 13% relative risk reduction.

“The nearly identical results from the three trials that were specifically designed and conducted to test whether vitamin D supplementation lowers diabetes clearly points to a beneficial effect of vitamin D for diabetes risk reduction. However, the overall effect in people not selected for vitamin D insufficiency seems to be less than hypothesized in each trial,” Dr. Pittas said in an interview.  

He added, “there will be no more specific vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials, so we need to continue gaining insights from these three trials.”

Some patients with prediabetes may benefit from vitamin D

Dr. Pittas advised that although the overall effect is modest in people with prediabetes who aren’t selected for vitamin D deficiency, “given how prevalent prediabetes and type 2 diabetes are, clinicians and patients should consider vitamin D supplementation as an adjunct to weight loss for diabetes prevention. Based on analyses from the D2d study, people with prediabetes who have low levels of vitamin D and are nonobese derive the most benefit.”

He noted that secondary analyses from D2d also suggest greater benefit among those achieving higher blood levels of vitamin D, but that high supplemental doses could cause adverse musculoskeletal outcomes in older adults, “so the benefit–harm ratio needs to be ascertained individually.”

Dr. Christides advised, “Until further data are available from high-quality randomized trials, health care professionals should continue to discuss with patients the musculoskeletal health benefits of vitamin D and support them to achieve and maintain lifestyle changes that, although challenging to sustain, are known to decrease development of [type 2 diabetes].”
 

DPVD: Hint of benefit in those with greater insulin resistance

The double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled DPVD trial took place from June 1, 2013, through Aug. 31, 2015, and involved 1,256 participants with impaired glucose tolerance (with or without impaired fasting glucose) from 32 institutions in Japan. They were randomized 1:1 to receive eldecalcitol or placebo for 3 years.

During the 3-year period, 12.5% of the 630 patients in the eldecalcitol group and 14.2% of the 626 patients in the placebo group developed diabetes. The difference was not significant, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (P = .39). There was no difference in regression to normoglycemia, which had occurred in 23.0% with eldecalcitol versus 20.1% with placebo by the end of the study (P = .21).

However, eldecalcitol was effective for preventing the development of type 2 diabetes after adjustment for prespecified variables, including age, sex, hypertension, body mass index, family history of diabetes, 2-hour plasma glucose, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, and insulin resistance (HR, 0.69; P = .02).

In a post hoc analysis, eldecalcitol significantly prevented the development of type 2 diabetes among those with the lowest divisions of homeostatic model assessment (HOMA)-β (HR, 0.35; P < .001), HOMA-insulin resistance (HR, 0.37; P = .001), and fasting immunoreactive insulin (HR, 0.41; P = .001).

“These results indicate that eldecalcitol had a beneficial effect on insufficient basal insulin secretion,” Dr. Kawahara and colleagues wrote.

Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.1% with eldecalcitol and 3.4% in the placebo group (HR, 1.23; P = .47). Rates and types of adverse events didn’t differ significantly between the two groups.

The study was supported by a grant from the Kitakyushu Medical Association. The authors had no further disclosures. Dr. Christides had no disclosures. Dr. Pittas has reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

San Diego – The anabolic osteoporosis treatment abaloparatide (Tymlos, Radius Health) works in men as well as women, new data indicate.  

Findings from the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study were presented last week at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) Annual Meeting 2022.

Abaloparatide, a subcutaneously administered parathyroid-hormone–related protein (PTHrP) analog, resulted in significant increases in bone mineral density by 12 months at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, compared with placebo in men with osteoporosis, with no significant adverse effects.

“Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed in men. Abaloparatide is another option for an ignored population,” presenter Neil Binkley, MD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison, said in an interview.

Abaloparatide was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture due to a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple fracture risk factors, or who haven’t responded to or are intolerant of other osteoporosis therapies.

While postmenopausal women have mainly been the focus in osteoporosis, men account for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis and have greater fracture-related morbidity and mortality than women.

About one in four men over the age of 50 years will have a fragility fracture in their lifetime. Yet, they’re far less likely to be diagnosed or to be included in osteoporosis treatment trials, Dr. Binkley noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh D. Hoang, DO, told this news organization, “I think it’s a great option to treat osteoporosis, and now we have evidence for treating osteoporosis in men. Mostly the data have come from postmenopausal women.”
 

Screen men with hypogonadism or those taking steroids

“This new medication is an addition to the very limited number of treatments that we have when patients don’t respond to [initial] medications. To have another anabolic bone-forming medication is very, very good,” said Dr. Hoang, who is professor and program director of the Endocrinology Fellowship Program at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Radius Health filed a Supplemental New Drug Application with the FDA for abaloparatide (Tymlos) subcutaneous injection in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture in February. There is a 10-month review period.

Dr. Binkley advises bone screening for men who have conditions such as hypogonadism or who are taking glucocorticoids or chemotherapeutics.

But, he added, “I think that if we did nothing else good in the osteoporosis field, if we treated people after they fractured that would be a huge step forward. Even with a normal T score, when those people fracture, they [often] don’t have normal bone mineral density ... That’s a group of people we’re ignoring still. They’re not getting diagnosed, and they’re not getting treated.”

ATOM Study: Significant BMD increases at key sites

The approval of abaloparatide in women was based on the phase 3, 18-week ACTIVE trial of more than 2,000 high-risk women, in whom abaloparatide was associated with an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture incidence, compared with placebo, and also significantly greater reductions in nonvertebral fractures, compared with both placebo and teriparatide (Forteo, Eli Lilly).

The ATOM study involved a total of 228 men aged 40-85 years with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 μg abaloparatide or injected placebo daily for 12 months. All had T scores (based on male reference range) of ≤ −2.5 at the lumbar spine or hip, or ≤ −1.5 and with radiologic vertebral fracture or a history of low trauma nonvertebral fracture in the past 5 years, or T score ≤ −2.0 if older than 65 years.

Increases in bone mineral density from baseline were significantly greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean percentage changes at 12 months were 8.5%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, for the three locations, respectively, compared with 1.2%, 0.01%, and 0.2% for placebo (all P ≤ .0001).

Three fractures occurred in those receiving placebo and one with abaloparatide.

For markers of bone turnover, median serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) was 111.2 ng/mL after 1 month of abaloparatide treatment and 85.7 ng/mL at month 12. Median serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (s-CTX) was 0.48 ng/mL at month 6 and 0.45 ng/mL at month 12 in the abaloparatide group. Geometric mean relative to baseline s-PINP and s-CTX increased significantly at months 3, 6, and 12 (all P < .001 for relative treatment effect of abaloparatide vs. placebo).

The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site erythema (12.8% vs. 5.1%), nasopharyngitis (8.7% vs. 7.6%), dizziness (8.7% vs. 1.3%), and arthralgia (6.7% vs. 1.3%), with abaloparatide versus placebo. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in both groups (5.4% vs. 5.1%). There was one death in the abaloparatide group, which was deemed unrelated to the drug.

Dr. Binkley has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and research support from Radius. Dr. Hoang has reported disclosures with Acella Pharmaceuticals and Horizon Therapeutics (no financial compensation).

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

San Diego – The anabolic osteoporosis treatment abaloparatide (Tymlos, Radius Health) works in men as well as women, new data indicate.  

Findings from the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study were presented last week at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) Annual Meeting 2022.

Abaloparatide, a subcutaneously administered parathyroid-hormone–related protein (PTHrP) analog, resulted in significant increases in bone mineral density by 12 months at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, compared with placebo in men with osteoporosis, with no significant adverse effects.

“Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed in men. Abaloparatide is another option for an ignored population,” presenter Neil Binkley, MD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison, said in an interview.

Abaloparatide was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture due to a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple fracture risk factors, or who haven’t responded to or are intolerant of other osteoporosis therapies.

While postmenopausal women have mainly been the focus in osteoporosis, men account for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis and have greater fracture-related morbidity and mortality than women.

About one in four men over the age of 50 years will have a fragility fracture in their lifetime. Yet, they’re far less likely to be diagnosed or to be included in osteoporosis treatment trials, Dr. Binkley noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh D. Hoang, DO, told this news organization, “I think it’s a great option to treat osteoporosis, and now we have evidence for treating osteoporosis in men. Mostly the data have come from postmenopausal women.”
 

Screen men with hypogonadism or those taking steroids

“This new medication is an addition to the very limited number of treatments that we have when patients don’t respond to [initial] medications. To have another anabolic bone-forming medication is very, very good,” said Dr. Hoang, who is professor and program director of the Endocrinology Fellowship Program at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Radius Health filed a Supplemental New Drug Application with the FDA for abaloparatide (Tymlos) subcutaneous injection in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture in February. There is a 10-month review period.

Dr. Binkley advises bone screening for men who have conditions such as hypogonadism or who are taking glucocorticoids or chemotherapeutics.

But, he added, “I think that if we did nothing else good in the osteoporosis field, if we treated people after they fractured that would be a huge step forward. Even with a normal T score, when those people fracture, they [often] don’t have normal bone mineral density ... That’s a group of people we’re ignoring still. They’re not getting diagnosed, and they’re not getting treated.”

ATOM Study: Significant BMD increases at key sites

The approval of abaloparatide in women was based on the phase 3, 18-week ACTIVE trial of more than 2,000 high-risk women, in whom abaloparatide was associated with an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture incidence, compared with placebo, and also significantly greater reductions in nonvertebral fractures, compared with both placebo and teriparatide (Forteo, Eli Lilly).

The ATOM study involved a total of 228 men aged 40-85 years with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 μg abaloparatide or injected placebo daily for 12 months. All had T scores (based on male reference range) of ≤ −2.5 at the lumbar spine or hip, or ≤ −1.5 and with radiologic vertebral fracture or a history of low trauma nonvertebral fracture in the past 5 years, or T score ≤ −2.0 if older than 65 years.

Increases in bone mineral density from baseline were significantly greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean percentage changes at 12 months were 8.5%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, for the three locations, respectively, compared with 1.2%, 0.01%, and 0.2% for placebo (all P ≤ .0001).

Three fractures occurred in those receiving placebo and one with abaloparatide.

For markers of bone turnover, median serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) was 111.2 ng/mL after 1 month of abaloparatide treatment and 85.7 ng/mL at month 12. Median serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (s-CTX) was 0.48 ng/mL at month 6 and 0.45 ng/mL at month 12 in the abaloparatide group. Geometric mean relative to baseline s-PINP and s-CTX increased significantly at months 3, 6, and 12 (all P < .001 for relative treatment effect of abaloparatide vs. placebo).

The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site erythema (12.8% vs. 5.1%), nasopharyngitis (8.7% vs. 7.6%), dizziness (8.7% vs. 1.3%), and arthralgia (6.7% vs. 1.3%), with abaloparatide versus placebo. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in both groups (5.4% vs. 5.1%). There was one death in the abaloparatide group, which was deemed unrelated to the drug.

Dr. Binkley has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and research support from Radius. Dr. Hoang has reported disclosures with Acella Pharmaceuticals and Horizon Therapeutics (no financial compensation).

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

San Diego – The anabolic osteoporosis treatment abaloparatide (Tymlos, Radius Health) works in men as well as women, new data indicate.  

Findings from the Abaloparatide for the Treatment of Men With Osteoporosis (ATOM) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study were presented last week at the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) Annual Meeting 2022.

Abaloparatide, a subcutaneously administered parathyroid-hormone–related protein (PTHrP) analog, resulted in significant increases in bone mineral density by 12 months at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck, compared with placebo in men with osteoporosis, with no significant adverse effects.

“Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed in men. Abaloparatide is another option for an ignored population,” presenter Neil Binkley, MD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison, said in an interview.

Abaloparatide was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of postmenopausal women at high risk for fracture due to a history of osteoporotic fracture or multiple fracture risk factors, or who haven’t responded to or are intolerant of other osteoporosis therapies.

While postmenopausal women have mainly been the focus in osteoporosis, men account for approximately 30% of the societal burden of osteoporosis and have greater fracture-related morbidity and mortality than women.

About one in four men over the age of 50 years will have a fragility fracture in their lifetime. Yet, they’re far less likely to be diagnosed or to be included in osteoporosis treatment trials, Dr. Binkley noted.

Asked to comment, session moderator Thanh D. Hoang, DO, told this news organization, “I think it’s a great option to treat osteoporosis, and now we have evidence for treating osteoporosis in men. Mostly the data have come from postmenopausal women.”
 

Screen men with hypogonadism or those taking steroids

“This new medication is an addition to the very limited number of treatments that we have when patients don’t respond to [initial] medications. To have another anabolic bone-forming medication is very, very good,” said Dr. Hoang, who is professor and program director of the Endocrinology Fellowship Program at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.

Radius Health filed a Supplemental New Drug Application with the FDA for abaloparatide (Tymlos) subcutaneous injection in men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture in February. There is a 10-month review period.

Dr. Binkley advises bone screening for men who have conditions such as hypogonadism or who are taking glucocorticoids or chemotherapeutics.

But, he added, “I think that if we did nothing else good in the osteoporosis field, if we treated people after they fractured that would be a huge step forward. Even with a normal T score, when those people fracture, they [often] don’t have normal bone mineral density ... That’s a group of people we’re ignoring still. They’re not getting diagnosed, and they’re not getting treated.”

ATOM Study: Significant BMD increases at key sites

The approval of abaloparatide in women was based on the phase 3, 18-week ACTIVE trial of more than 2,000 high-risk women, in whom abaloparatide was associated with an 86% reduction in vertebral fracture incidence, compared with placebo, and also significantly greater reductions in nonvertebral fractures, compared with both placebo and teriparatide (Forteo, Eli Lilly).

The ATOM study involved a total of 228 men aged 40-85 years with primary or hypogonadism-associated osteoporosis randomized 2:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 μg abaloparatide or injected placebo daily for 12 months. All had T scores (based on male reference range) of ≤ −2.5 at the lumbar spine or hip, or ≤ −1.5 and with radiologic vertebral fracture or a history of low trauma nonvertebral fracture in the past 5 years, or T score ≤ −2.0 if older than 65 years.

Increases in bone mineral density from baseline were significantly greater with abaloparatide compared with placebo at the lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck at 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean percentage changes at 12 months were 8.5%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, for the three locations, respectively, compared with 1.2%, 0.01%, and 0.2% for placebo (all P ≤ .0001).

Three fractures occurred in those receiving placebo and one with abaloparatide.

For markers of bone turnover, median serum procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (s-PINP) was 111.2 ng/mL after 1 month of abaloparatide treatment and 85.7 ng/mL at month 12. Median serum carboxy-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type I collagen (s-CTX) was 0.48 ng/mL at month 6 and 0.45 ng/mL at month 12 in the abaloparatide group. Geometric mean relative to baseline s-PINP and s-CTX increased significantly at months 3, 6, and 12 (all P < .001 for relative treatment effect of abaloparatide vs. placebo).

The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were injection site erythema (12.8% vs. 5.1%), nasopharyngitis (8.7% vs. 7.6%), dizziness (8.7% vs. 1.3%), and arthralgia (6.7% vs. 1.3%), with abaloparatide versus placebo. Serious treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar in both groups (5.4% vs. 5.1%). There was one death in the abaloparatide group, which was deemed unrelated to the drug.

Dr. Binkley has reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen and research support from Radius. Dr. Hoang has reported disclosures with Acella Pharmaceuticals and Horizon Therapeutics (no financial compensation).

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

New clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are the first to be targeted specifically to primary care and endocrinology clinical settings.

They include 34 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for screening, diagnosis, management, and referral, presented in a table and an algorithm flow chart as well as detailed text.

The new guidelines are by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and cosponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. They were presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the AACE and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

These are “the first of this type for this field of medicine. The vast majority of patients with NAFLD are being seen in the primary care and endocrinology settings. Only when they get to the more advanced disease are they being referred to the liver specialists. So, we need to be the ones who are diagnosing and managing these patients because there just aren’t enough liver specialists to do that,” Scott Isaacs, MD, cochair of the writing panel for the guidelines, said in an interview.

80 million Americans have NAFLD, but very few are aware

The spectrum of NAFLD ranges from nonprogressive steatosis to the progressive conditions nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fibrotic NASH, and end-stage NASH cirrhosis. And NASH, in turn, is a major cause of liver cancer. NAFLD is also strongly associated with insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, atherogenesis, and myocardial dysfunction.

The global prevalence of NAFLD is about 25% and NASH, about 12%-14%. However, a recent study found that, among patients in endocrine and primary care clinics, more than 70% of patients with type 2 diabetes and more than 90% with type 2 diabetes who had a body mass index above 35 kg/m2 also had NAFLD, and more than 20% of those patients had significant liver fibrosis.

Problematically, very few people are aware they have either. “It’s so common. At least 80 million Americans have this but only about 6% know they have it. We talk about it a lot, but it’s not talked about enough,” said Dr. Isaacs, an endocrinologist who practices in Atlanta.

In fact, most cases of NAFLD are diagnosed incidentally when people undergo an ultrasound or a CT scan for another reason. And, in about 70% of cases the liver enzymes are normal, and those patients rarely undergo liver workups, Dr. Isaacs noted.

In an accompanying editorial, Suthat Liangpunsakul, MD, wrote: “In my perspective, as a hepatologist, this AACE guideline is very practical and easy to incorporate into routine practice in primary care and endocrinology settings. ... Early identification and risk stratification of patients with NAFLD, especially the degree of hepatic fibrosis, are required to reduce downstream health care costs and triage unwarranted specialty care referrals.”

And “an effective screening strategy may also identify those in primary care and endocrinology settings who may benefit from an appropriate referral to hepatologists before the development of portal hypertension complications, decompensated liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma,” added Dr. Liangpunsakul, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Screening advised using new FIB-4 test

The guideline calls for screening all patients at high risk for NAFLD, including those with prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and/or two or more cardiometabolic risk factors, or those with hepatic steatosis found on imaging, and/or persistently elevated plasma aminotransferase levels (that is, for more than 6 months).

The recommended screening test is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, calculated using the patient’s age, AST level, platelet count, and ALT level: FIB-4 score = age (years) x AST (U/L)/PLT (10⁹/L) x ALT ½ (U/L).

Recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the FIB-4 has been demonstrated to help identify liver disease in primary care settings.

“We really want to encourage clinicians to do the screening. The first step is the FIB-4 test. It’s a mathematical calculation using blood tests that we do anyway,” Dr. Isaacs said in an interview.

The FIB-4 stratifies patients as being low, intermediate, or high risk for liver fibrosis. Those at low risk can be managed in primary care or endocrinology settings with a focus on obesity management and cardiovascular disease prevention. “Those at low risk on FIB-4 still have a high cardiovascular disease risk. They still need to be managed,” Dr. Isaacs observed.

For those at intermediate risk, a second noninvasive test – either a liver stiffness measurement by elastography or an enhanced liver fibrosis test – is advised. If the patient is found to be at high risk or is still indeterminant after two noninvasive tests, referral to a liver specialist for further testing, including possible biopsy, is advised.

Those found to be at high risk with the FIB-4 should also be referred to hepatology. In both the intermediate- and high-risk groups, management should be multidisciplinary, including a hepatologist, endocrinologist, and other professionals to prevent both cardiovascular disease and progression to cirrhosis, the guidelines say.

“The diagnosis isn’t about diagnosing liver fat. It’s about diagnosing fibrosis, or the risk for clinically significant fibrosis. That’s really where the challenge lies,” Dr. Isaacs commented.
 

NAFLD treatment in endocrinology and primary care: CVD prevention

During the presentation at the AACE meeting, guideline panel cochair Kenneth Cusi, MD, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville, summarized current and future treatments for NAFLD.

Lifestyle intervention, cardiovascular risk reduction, and weight loss for those who are overweight or obese are recommended for all patients with NAFLD, including structured weight-loss programs, antiobesity medications, and bariatric surgery if indicated.

There are currently no FDA-approved medications specifically for NASH, but pioglitazone, approved for type 2 diabetes, and glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, approved for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, have been shown to be effective in treating the condition and preventing progression. Other treatments are in development, Dr. Cusi said.  

The guideline also includes a section on diagnosis and management of NAFLD in children and adolescents. Here, the FIB-4 is not recommended because it isn’t accurate due to the age part of the equation, so liver enzyme tests are used in pediatric patients considered at high risk because of clinical factors. Management is similar to adults, except not all medications used in adults are approved for use in children.

In the editorial, Dr. Liangpunsakul cautioned that “the level of uptake and usage of the guideline may be an obstacle.”

To remedy that, he advised that “the next effort should gear toward distributing this guideline to the targeted providers and developing the ‘feedback platforms’ on its execution in the real-world. ... The successful implementation of this AACE guideline by the primary care providers and endocrinologists, hopefully, will deescalate the future burden of NAFLD-related morbidity and mortality.”

Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Liangpunsakul have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cusi has reported receiving research support towards the University of Florida as principal investigator from the National Institute of Health, Echosens, Inventiva, Nordic Bioscience, Novo Nordisk, Poxel, Labcorp, and Zydus, and is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, and Thera Technologies.

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

New clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are the first to be targeted specifically to primary care and endocrinology clinical settings.

They include 34 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for screening, diagnosis, management, and referral, presented in a table and an algorithm flow chart as well as detailed text.

The new guidelines are by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and cosponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. They were presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the AACE and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

These are “the first of this type for this field of medicine. The vast majority of patients with NAFLD are being seen in the primary care and endocrinology settings. Only when they get to the more advanced disease are they being referred to the liver specialists. So, we need to be the ones who are diagnosing and managing these patients because there just aren’t enough liver specialists to do that,” Scott Isaacs, MD, cochair of the writing panel for the guidelines, said in an interview.

80 million Americans have NAFLD, but very few are aware

The spectrum of NAFLD ranges from nonprogressive steatosis to the progressive conditions nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fibrotic NASH, and end-stage NASH cirrhosis. And NASH, in turn, is a major cause of liver cancer. NAFLD is also strongly associated with insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, atherogenesis, and myocardial dysfunction.

The global prevalence of NAFLD is about 25% and NASH, about 12%-14%. However, a recent study found that, among patients in endocrine and primary care clinics, more than 70% of patients with type 2 diabetes and more than 90% with type 2 diabetes who had a body mass index above 35 kg/m2 also had NAFLD, and more than 20% of those patients had significant liver fibrosis.

Problematically, very few people are aware they have either. “It’s so common. At least 80 million Americans have this but only about 6% know they have it. We talk about it a lot, but it’s not talked about enough,” said Dr. Isaacs, an endocrinologist who practices in Atlanta.

In fact, most cases of NAFLD are diagnosed incidentally when people undergo an ultrasound or a CT scan for another reason. And, in about 70% of cases the liver enzymes are normal, and those patients rarely undergo liver workups, Dr. Isaacs noted.

In an accompanying editorial, Suthat Liangpunsakul, MD, wrote: “In my perspective, as a hepatologist, this AACE guideline is very practical and easy to incorporate into routine practice in primary care and endocrinology settings. ... Early identification and risk stratification of patients with NAFLD, especially the degree of hepatic fibrosis, are required to reduce downstream health care costs and triage unwarranted specialty care referrals.”

And “an effective screening strategy may also identify those in primary care and endocrinology settings who may benefit from an appropriate referral to hepatologists before the development of portal hypertension complications, decompensated liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma,” added Dr. Liangpunsakul, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Screening advised using new FIB-4 test

The guideline calls for screening all patients at high risk for NAFLD, including those with prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and/or two or more cardiometabolic risk factors, or those with hepatic steatosis found on imaging, and/or persistently elevated plasma aminotransferase levels (that is, for more than 6 months).

The recommended screening test is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, calculated using the patient’s age, AST level, platelet count, and ALT level: FIB-4 score = age (years) x AST (U/L)/PLT (10⁹/L) x ALT ½ (U/L).

Recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the FIB-4 has been demonstrated to help identify liver disease in primary care settings.

“We really want to encourage clinicians to do the screening. The first step is the FIB-4 test. It’s a mathematical calculation using blood tests that we do anyway,” Dr. Isaacs said in an interview.

The FIB-4 stratifies patients as being low, intermediate, or high risk for liver fibrosis. Those at low risk can be managed in primary care or endocrinology settings with a focus on obesity management and cardiovascular disease prevention. “Those at low risk on FIB-4 still have a high cardiovascular disease risk. They still need to be managed,” Dr. Isaacs observed.

For those at intermediate risk, a second noninvasive test – either a liver stiffness measurement by elastography or an enhanced liver fibrosis test – is advised. If the patient is found to be at high risk or is still indeterminant after two noninvasive tests, referral to a liver specialist for further testing, including possible biopsy, is advised.

Those found to be at high risk with the FIB-4 should also be referred to hepatology. In both the intermediate- and high-risk groups, management should be multidisciplinary, including a hepatologist, endocrinologist, and other professionals to prevent both cardiovascular disease and progression to cirrhosis, the guidelines say.

“The diagnosis isn’t about diagnosing liver fat. It’s about diagnosing fibrosis, or the risk for clinically significant fibrosis. That’s really where the challenge lies,” Dr. Isaacs commented.
 

NAFLD treatment in endocrinology and primary care: CVD prevention

During the presentation at the AACE meeting, guideline panel cochair Kenneth Cusi, MD, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville, summarized current and future treatments for NAFLD.

Lifestyle intervention, cardiovascular risk reduction, and weight loss for those who are overweight or obese are recommended for all patients with NAFLD, including structured weight-loss programs, antiobesity medications, and bariatric surgery if indicated.

There are currently no FDA-approved medications specifically for NASH, but pioglitazone, approved for type 2 diabetes, and glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, approved for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, have been shown to be effective in treating the condition and preventing progression. Other treatments are in development, Dr. Cusi said.  

The guideline also includes a section on diagnosis and management of NAFLD in children and adolescents. Here, the FIB-4 is not recommended because it isn’t accurate due to the age part of the equation, so liver enzyme tests are used in pediatric patients considered at high risk because of clinical factors. Management is similar to adults, except not all medications used in adults are approved for use in children.

In the editorial, Dr. Liangpunsakul cautioned that “the level of uptake and usage of the guideline may be an obstacle.”

To remedy that, he advised that “the next effort should gear toward distributing this guideline to the targeted providers and developing the ‘feedback platforms’ on its execution in the real-world. ... The successful implementation of this AACE guideline by the primary care providers and endocrinologists, hopefully, will deescalate the future burden of NAFLD-related morbidity and mortality.”

Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Liangpunsakul have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cusi has reported receiving research support towards the University of Florida as principal investigator from the National Institute of Health, Echosens, Inventiva, Nordic Bioscience, Novo Nordisk, Poxel, Labcorp, and Zydus, and is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, and Thera Technologies.

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

New clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are the first to be targeted specifically to primary care and endocrinology clinical settings.

They include 34 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for screening, diagnosis, management, and referral, presented in a table and an algorithm flow chart as well as detailed text.

The new guidelines are by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology and cosponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. They were presented at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the AACE and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

These are “the first of this type for this field of medicine. The vast majority of patients with NAFLD are being seen in the primary care and endocrinology settings. Only when they get to the more advanced disease are they being referred to the liver specialists. So, we need to be the ones who are diagnosing and managing these patients because there just aren’t enough liver specialists to do that,” Scott Isaacs, MD, cochair of the writing panel for the guidelines, said in an interview.

80 million Americans have NAFLD, but very few are aware

The spectrum of NAFLD ranges from nonprogressive steatosis to the progressive conditions nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fibrotic NASH, and end-stage NASH cirrhosis. And NASH, in turn, is a major cause of liver cancer. NAFLD is also strongly associated with insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, atherogenesis, and myocardial dysfunction.

The global prevalence of NAFLD is about 25% and NASH, about 12%-14%. However, a recent study found that, among patients in endocrine and primary care clinics, more than 70% of patients with type 2 diabetes and more than 90% with type 2 diabetes who had a body mass index above 35 kg/m2 also had NAFLD, and more than 20% of those patients had significant liver fibrosis.

Problematically, very few people are aware they have either. “It’s so common. At least 80 million Americans have this but only about 6% know they have it. We talk about it a lot, but it’s not talked about enough,” said Dr. Isaacs, an endocrinologist who practices in Atlanta.

In fact, most cases of NAFLD are diagnosed incidentally when people undergo an ultrasound or a CT scan for another reason. And, in about 70% of cases the liver enzymes are normal, and those patients rarely undergo liver workups, Dr. Isaacs noted.

In an accompanying editorial, Suthat Liangpunsakul, MD, wrote: “In my perspective, as a hepatologist, this AACE guideline is very practical and easy to incorporate into routine practice in primary care and endocrinology settings. ... Early identification and risk stratification of patients with NAFLD, especially the degree of hepatic fibrosis, are required to reduce downstream health care costs and triage unwarranted specialty care referrals.”

And “an effective screening strategy may also identify those in primary care and endocrinology settings who may benefit from an appropriate referral to hepatologists before the development of portal hypertension complications, decompensated liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma,” added Dr. Liangpunsakul, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
 

Screening advised using new FIB-4 test

The guideline calls for screening all patients at high risk for NAFLD, including those with prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and/or two or more cardiometabolic risk factors, or those with hepatic steatosis found on imaging, and/or persistently elevated plasma aminotransferase levels (that is, for more than 6 months).

The recommended screening test is the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index, calculated using the patient’s age, AST level, platelet count, and ALT level: FIB-4 score = age (years) x AST (U/L)/PLT (10⁹/L) x ALT ½ (U/L).

Recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the FIB-4 has been demonstrated to help identify liver disease in primary care settings.

“We really want to encourage clinicians to do the screening. The first step is the FIB-4 test. It’s a mathematical calculation using blood tests that we do anyway,” Dr. Isaacs said in an interview.

The FIB-4 stratifies patients as being low, intermediate, or high risk for liver fibrosis. Those at low risk can be managed in primary care or endocrinology settings with a focus on obesity management and cardiovascular disease prevention. “Those at low risk on FIB-4 still have a high cardiovascular disease risk. They still need to be managed,” Dr. Isaacs observed.

For those at intermediate risk, a second noninvasive test – either a liver stiffness measurement by elastography or an enhanced liver fibrosis test – is advised. If the patient is found to be at high risk or is still indeterminant after two noninvasive tests, referral to a liver specialist for further testing, including possible biopsy, is advised.

Those found to be at high risk with the FIB-4 should also be referred to hepatology. In both the intermediate- and high-risk groups, management should be multidisciplinary, including a hepatologist, endocrinologist, and other professionals to prevent both cardiovascular disease and progression to cirrhosis, the guidelines say.

“The diagnosis isn’t about diagnosing liver fat. It’s about diagnosing fibrosis, or the risk for clinically significant fibrosis. That’s really where the challenge lies,” Dr. Isaacs commented.
 

NAFLD treatment in endocrinology and primary care: CVD prevention

During the presentation at the AACE meeting, guideline panel cochair Kenneth Cusi, MD, chief of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Florida, Gainesville, summarized current and future treatments for NAFLD.

Lifestyle intervention, cardiovascular risk reduction, and weight loss for those who are overweight or obese are recommended for all patients with NAFLD, including structured weight-loss programs, antiobesity medications, and bariatric surgery if indicated.

There are currently no FDA-approved medications specifically for NASH, but pioglitazone, approved for type 2 diabetes, and glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists, approved for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, have been shown to be effective in treating the condition and preventing progression. Other treatments are in development, Dr. Cusi said.  

The guideline also includes a section on diagnosis and management of NAFLD in children and adolescents. Here, the FIB-4 is not recommended because it isn’t accurate due to the age part of the equation, so liver enzyme tests are used in pediatric patients considered at high risk because of clinical factors. Management is similar to adults, except not all medications used in adults are approved for use in children.

In the editorial, Dr. Liangpunsakul cautioned that “the level of uptake and usage of the guideline may be an obstacle.”

To remedy that, he advised that “the next effort should gear toward distributing this guideline to the targeted providers and developing the ‘feedback platforms’ on its execution in the real-world. ... The successful implementation of this AACE guideline by the primary care providers and endocrinologists, hopefully, will deescalate the future burden of NAFLD-related morbidity and mortality.”

Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Liangpunsakul have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cusi has reported receiving research support towards the University of Florida as principal investigator from the National Institute of Health, Echosens, Inventiva, Nordic Bioscience, Novo Nordisk, Poxel, Labcorp, and Zydus, and is a consultant for Altimmune, Akero, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, 89Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Intercept, Lilly, Madrigal, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Quest, Sagimet, Sonic Incytes, Terns, and Thera Technologies.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Suboptimal treatment of primary hypothyroidism may increase the risk of worse hospital outcomes, new research suggests.

The risks, including longer length of stay (LOS) and higher readmission rates, were no longer present in patients with adequately treated hypothyroidism, and in fact, appeared better than among those without hypothyroidism.

“Unfortunately, suboptimal treatment is common amongst the patient population with hypothyroidism,” wrote Matthew D. Ettleson, MD, of the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“It is important for both patients and physicians to know that maintaining optimal thyroid hormone replacement is important to minimize length of hospital stays and hospital readmission. It is particularly important for planned admissions where thyroid hormone replacement can be adjusted if needed prior to admission,” said Dr. Ettleson in a press release from the Endocrine Society.
 

More evidence of adverse effects of suboptimal treatment

The findings, from a large U.S. claims database, “add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the serious adverse short- and long-term health effects associated with suboptimal treatment of hypothyroidism,” the authors write in their article, published online  in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. Dr. Ettleson will also present the data on June 11 at the ENDO 2022 meeting.

Thyroid hormone replacement therapy – generally levothyroxine – is given for primary hypothyroidism with the aim of maintaining serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) within the normal reference range.

TSH is inversely related to the level of circulating thyroid hormone, so low levels of TSH indicate overtreatment of thyroid disease and high levels indicate undertreatment.

Worse hospital outcomes associated with high TSH

In their study, Dr. Ettleson and colleagues retrospectively examined IBM MarketScan claims for 43,478 privately insured patients younger than age 65 years and hospitalized for medical or surgical reasons in 2008-2015.

Of those, 8,873 met the criteria for primary hypothyroidism based on a pre-admission prescription claim for levothyroxine, TSH > 10.00 mIU/L, confirmed diagnosis of hypothyroidism during hospitalization, or chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis. Of those, 4,770 (53.8%) had a prescription claim for levothyroxine.  

Patients who met the clinical criteria for hypothyroidism were divided into four subgroups based on prehospitalization TSH level: low (< 0.40 mIU/L), normal (0.40-4.50 mIU/L), intermediate (4.51-10.00 mIU/L), and high (> 10.00 mIU/L).

The median length of time between TSH collection and hospital admission was 56 days in the hypothyroidism group and 63 days in the control group.

There were no differences in hospital outcomes between those with and without hypothyroidism among those who had low or intermediate TSH levels, in a multivariate analysis that used propensity-score matching.

In those with normal TSH levels, those with hypothyroidism actually had a lower risk of in-hospital death (risk ratio, 0.46; P = .004) and 90-day readmission rate (RR, 0.92; P = .02) than controls.

And those in the high TSH level subgroup had longer length of stay (+1.2 days; P = .003) and higher risk of 30-day readmission (RR, 1.49; P < .001) and 90-day readmission (RR, 1.43; P < .001), compared with balanced controls.
 

Public health effort needed to improve quality of care

There are multiple reasons why those with undertreated or undiagnosed hypothyroidism might have worse hospital outcomes, the authors say.

A bit more puzzling is why those with well-controlled hypothyroidism appeared to do better than those without hypothyroidism, given that thyroid hormone replacement isn’t likely to provide an advantage over normal, endogenous thyroid hormone production.

Dr. Ettleson and colleagues speculate that in-range TSH values may be a surrogate for regular health care and adherence to medical therapy, which likely leads to better hospital outcomes.

“The long- and short-term adverse health effects associated with off-target treatment of hypothyroidism, coupled with the high frequency of off-target treatment amongst the millions of patients in the United States on thyroid hormone, suggest that a public health effort to improve the quality of care of hypothyroidism is necessary,” Dr. Ettleson and colleagues write.

However, they note that there is currently no quality measure regarding appropriate treatment of hypothyroidism within the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The presence of guidelines alone may not be sufficient, as demonstrated by the inadequate application of guidelines for the use of levothyroxine in the treatment of thyroid cancer, a serious but much less common disease than clinical hypothyroidism,” the authors add.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ettleson has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Suboptimal treatment of primary hypothyroidism may increase the risk of worse hospital outcomes, new research suggests.

The risks, including longer length of stay (LOS) and higher readmission rates, were no longer present in patients with adequately treated hypothyroidism, and in fact, appeared better than among those without hypothyroidism.

“Unfortunately, suboptimal treatment is common amongst the patient population with hypothyroidism,” wrote Matthew D. Ettleson, MD, of the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“It is important for both patients and physicians to know that maintaining optimal thyroid hormone replacement is important to minimize length of hospital stays and hospital readmission. It is particularly important for planned admissions where thyroid hormone replacement can be adjusted if needed prior to admission,” said Dr. Ettleson in a press release from the Endocrine Society.
 

More evidence of adverse effects of suboptimal treatment

The findings, from a large U.S. claims database, “add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the serious adverse short- and long-term health effects associated with suboptimal treatment of hypothyroidism,” the authors write in their article, published online  in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. Dr. Ettleson will also present the data on June 11 at the ENDO 2022 meeting.

Thyroid hormone replacement therapy – generally levothyroxine – is given for primary hypothyroidism with the aim of maintaining serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) within the normal reference range.

TSH is inversely related to the level of circulating thyroid hormone, so low levels of TSH indicate overtreatment of thyroid disease and high levels indicate undertreatment.

Worse hospital outcomes associated with high TSH

In their study, Dr. Ettleson and colleagues retrospectively examined IBM MarketScan claims for 43,478 privately insured patients younger than age 65 years and hospitalized for medical or surgical reasons in 2008-2015.

Of those, 8,873 met the criteria for primary hypothyroidism based on a pre-admission prescription claim for levothyroxine, TSH > 10.00 mIU/L, confirmed diagnosis of hypothyroidism during hospitalization, or chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis. Of those, 4,770 (53.8%) had a prescription claim for levothyroxine.  

Patients who met the clinical criteria for hypothyroidism were divided into four subgroups based on prehospitalization TSH level: low (< 0.40 mIU/L), normal (0.40-4.50 mIU/L), intermediate (4.51-10.00 mIU/L), and high (> 10.00 mIU/L).

The median length of time between TSH collection and hospital admission was 56 days in the hypothyroidism group and 63 days in the control group.

There were no differences in hospital outcomes between those with and without hypothyroidism among those who had low or intermediate TSH levels, in a multivariate analysis that used propensity-score matching.

In those with normal TSH levels, those with hypothyroidism actually had a lower risk of in-hospital death (risk ratio, 0.46; P = .004) and 90-day readmission rate (RR, 0.92; P = .02) than controls.

And those in the high TSH level subgroup had longer length of stay (+1.2 days; P = .003) and higher risk of 30-day readmission (RR, 1.49; P < .001) and 90-day readmission (RR, 1.43; P < .001), compared with balanced controls.
 

Public health effort needed to improve quality of care

There are multiple reasons why those with undertreated or undiagnosed hypothyroidism might have worse hospital outcomes, the authors say.

A bit more puzzling is why those with well-controlled hypothyroidism appeared to do better than those without hypothyroidism, given that thyroid hormone replacement isn’t likely to provide an advantage over normal, endogenous thyroid hormone production.

Dr. Ettleson and colleagues speculate that in-range TSH values may be a surrogate for regular health care and adherence to medical therapy, which likely leads to better hospital outcomes.

“The long- and short-term adverse health effects associated with off-target treatment of hypothyroidism, coupled with the high frequency of off-target treatment amongst the millions of patients in the United States on thyroid hormone, suggest that a public health effort to improve the quality of care of hypothyroidism is necessary,” Dr. Ettleson and colleagues write.

However, they note that there is currently no quality measure regarding appropriate treatment of hypothyroidism within the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The presence of guidelines alone may not be sufficient, as demonstrated by the inadequate application of guidelines for the use of levothyroxine in the treatment of thyroid cancer, a serious but much less common disease than clinical hypothyroidism,” the authors add.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ettleson has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Suboptimal treatment of primary hypothyroidism may increase the risk of worse hospital outcomes, new research suggests.

The risks, including longer length of stay (LOS) and higher readmission rates, were no longer present in patients with adequately treated hypothyroidism, and in fact, appeared better than among those without hypothyroidism.

“Unfortunately, suboptimal treatment is common amongst the patient population with hypothyroidism,” wrote Matthew D. Ettleson, MD, of the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism at the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“It is important for both patients and physicians to know that maintaining optimal thyroid hormone replacement is important to minimize length of hospital stays and hospital readmission. It is particularly important for planned admissions where thyroid hormone replacement can be adjusted if needed prior to admission,” said Dr. Ettleson in a press release from the Endocrine Society.
 

More evidence of adverse effects of suboptimal treatment

The findings, from a large U.S. claims database, “add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the serious adverse short- and long-term health effects associated with suboptimal treatment of hypothyroidism,” the authors write in their article, published online  in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. Dr. Ettleson will also present the data on June 11 at the ENDO 2022 meeting.

Thyroid hormone replacement therapy – generally levothyroxine – is given for primary hypothyroidism with the aim of maintaining serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) within the normal reference range.

TSH is inversely related to the level of circulating thyroid hormone, so low levels of TSH indicate overtreatment of thyroid disease and high levels indicate undertreatment.

Worse hospital outcomes associated with high TSH

In their study, Dr. Ettleson and colleagues retrospectively examined IBM MarketScan claims for 43,478 privately insured patients younger than age 65 years and hospitalized for medical or surgical reasons in 2008-2015.

Of those, 8,873 met the criteria for primary hypothyroidism based on a pre-admission prescription claim for levothyroxine, TSH > 10.00 mIU/L, confirmed diagnosis of hypothyroidism during hospitalization, or chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis. Of those, 4,770 (53.8%) had a prescription claim for levothyroxine.  

Patients who met the clinical criteria for hypothyroidism were divided into four subgroups based on prehospitalization TSH level: low (< 0.40 mIU/L), normal (0.40-4.50 mIU/L), intermediate (4.51-10.00 mIU/L), and high (> 10.00 mIU/L).

The median length of time between TSH collection and hospital admission was 56 days in the hypothyroidism group and 63 days in the control group.

There were no differences in hospital outcomes between those with and without hypothyroidism among those who had low or intermediate TSH levels, in a multivariate analysis that used propensity-score matching.

In those with normal TSH levels, those with hypothyroidism actually had a lower risk of in-hospital death (risk ratio, 0.46; P = .004) and 90-day readmission rate (RR, 0.92; P = .02) than controls.

And those in the high TSH level subgroup had longer length of stay (+1.2 days; P = .003) and higher risk of 30-day readmission (RR, 1.49; P < .001) and 90-day readmission (RR, 1.43; P < .001), compared with balanced controls.
 

Public health effort needed to improve quality of care

There are multiple reasons why those with undertreated or undiagnosed hypothyroidism might have worse hospital outcomes, the authors say.

A bit more puzzling is why those with well-controlled hypothyroidism appeared to do better than those without hypothyroidism, given that thyroid hormone replacement isn’t likely to provide an advantage over normal, endogenous thyroid hormone production.

Dr. Ettleson and colleagues speculate that in-range TSH values may be a surrogate for regular health care and adherence to medical therapy, which likely leads to better hospital outcomes.

“The long- and short-term adverse health effects associated with off-target treatment of hypothyroidism, coupled with the high frequency of off-target treatment amongst the millions of patients in the United States on thyroid hormone, suggest that a public health effort to improve the quality of care of hypothyroidism is necessary,” Dr. Ettleson and colleagues write.

However, they note that there is currently no quality measure regarding appropriate treatment of hypothyroidism within the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“The presence of guidelines alone may not be sufficient, as demonstrated by the inadequate application of guidelines for the use of levothyroxine in the treatment of thyroid cancer, a serious but much less common disease than clinical hypothyroidism,” the authors add.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ettleson has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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