User login
Smart insoles reduce ‘high-risk’ diabetic foot ulcer recurrence
BERLIN – Smart insoles that warn diabetic individuals of high plantar pressures could be a simple solution to help them avoid recurrent foot ulcers, according to the results of a randomized trial.
Study participants with a history of diabetic foot ulcers wore the plantar pressure–sensing insoles (SurroSense Rx) and received feedback via sensor linked to a smart watch worn and were 71% less likely to experience a recurrent foot ulceration than were those who wore the insoles but did not get the pressure feedback (incidence rate ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.93; P = .037). The device has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
Overall, there were few ulcers that occurred in the study, with 10 ulcers from 8,638 person-days from six patients reported in the control group and four ulcers from 11,835 person-days from four patients in the intervention group.
“Diabetic foot ulcers are a major global health and economic burden, but, in theory at least, they are ultimately preventable,” said study investigator Neil Reeves, PhD,, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Data suggest that recurrence rates for ulceration are as high as 65% at 6 years, he said, with up to a quarter of ulcers progressing to the point where some form of amputation is needed.
“In the laboratory, we can measure plantar pressures, and these are considered as a relatively accurate proxy for diabetic foot ulcer risk. So we can discriminate between those with diabetic neuropathy, and those without, and also those with a previous history of ulceration,” Dr. Reeves said.
Dr. Reeves, who is professor of musculoskeletal biomechanics at Manchester (England) Metropolitan University, observed that the rationale behind the development of the smart insoles was to move plantar pressure measurement out of the laboratory and into the real world.
The smart insoles incorporate eight discreet pressure sensors that are connected to pod worn on the front of the participant’s own shoe and that wirelessly relay pressure information to a smartwatch. Both the control and the intervention groups received the same device, Dr. Reeves pointed out, but the difference was that the only the intervention group got any pressure feedback from the sensors to the smartwatch.
“When high pressure was experienced in the intervention group on any of these sensors, the patient was alerted both by an auditory alarm and also by being able to see this on the smartwatch,” Dr. Reeves explained.
“The patient would be alerted as to where the pressure was high on the foot and that would be a trigger to offload this high pressure.” Patients would then be instructed via the smartwatch to try to offload the pressure by either walking around for 2 minutes, actively taking the weight off the foot, or removing the shoe to check for any foreign bodies.
In all, there were 58 study participants – 32 randomized to the intervention group and 26 to the control group – who had a history of diabetic foot ulcers and peripheral neuropathy but who were able to walk independently for at least 30 steps. The mean age of patients in the intervention group was 59 years, 88% were male, 72% had type 2 diabetes mellitus, with the mean duration of diabetes was 22 years. Corresponding data in the control group were 67 years, 89% male, 85% had type 2 diabetes, and 21 years’ diabetes duration.
Patients were reviewed monthly over a period of 18 months or until plantar ulceration occurred. Information on diabetic foot ulcers was collected and standardized using a previously developed mobile app (Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12[1]:169-73) and then confirmed via blinded assessment by two experts.
Dr. Reeves noted that there was no significant difference in the time to ulceration between the groups, with 77.5% and 68.4% of the intervention and control group remaining ulcer free at 18 months (P = .30). When the data were adjusted for compliance, there was an 86% reduction in the risk of reulceration in the intervention versus the control group (IRR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.63; P = .011). This analysis took into account only those study participants who had 4.5 hours or more of daily wear of the smart insoles (n = 40). On average, the insoles were worn for 6.1 hours in the control group and by 6.9 hours in the intervention group.
“We suggest that the mechanism for this beneficial effect in the present study is likely pressure offloading, which has been afforded by providing patients in the intervention group with this plantar-pressure feedback,” said Dr. Reeves.
“That’s feedback that they’ve lost naturally many years ago due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy,” he added. “So, in that respect, we would suggest that patients have really been empowered here to take control of their foot health in a way that they haven’t been able to since the onset of significant diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”
Diabetes UK provided the primary funding for the study (years 1-3), with Orpyx Medical Technologies, Canada, providing funding during the study extension (year 4). Dr. Reeves did not have any disclosures.
BERLIN – Smart insoles that warn diabetic individuals of high plantar pressures could be a simple solution to help them avoid recurrent foot ulcers, according to the results of a randomized trial.
Study participants with a history of diabetic foot ulcers wore the plantar pressure–sensing insoles (SurroSense Rx) and received feedback via sensor linked to a smart watch worn and were 71% less likely to experience a recurrent foot ulceration than were those who wore the insoles but did not get the pressure feedback (incidence rate ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.93; P = .037). The device has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
Overall, there were few ulcers that occurred in the study, with 10 ulcers from 8,638 person-days from six patients reported in the control group and four ulcers from 11,835 person-days from four patients in the intervention group.
“Diabetic foot ulcers are a major global health and economic burden, but, in theory at least, they are ultimately preventable,” said study investigator Neil Reeves, PhD,, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Data suggest that recurrence rates for ulceration are as high as 65% at 6 years, he said, with up to a quarter of ulcers progressing to the point where some form of amputation is needed.
“In the laboratory, we can measure plantar pressures, and these are considered as a relatively accurate proxy for diabetic foot ulcer risk. So we can discriminate between those with diabetic neuropathy, and those without, and also those with a previous history of ulceration,” Dr. Reeves said.
Dr. Reeves, who is professor of musculoskeletal biomechanics at Manchester (England) Metropolitan University, observed that the rationale behind the development of the smart insoles was to move plantar pressure measurement out of the laboratory and into the real world.
The smart insoles incorporate eight discreet pressure sensors that are connected to pod worn on the front of the participant’s own shoe and that wirelessly relay pressure information to a smartwatch. Both the control and the intervention groups received the same device, Dr. Reeves pointed out, but the difference was that the only the intervention group got any pressure feedback from the sensors to the smartwatch.
“When high pressure was experienced in the intervention group on any of these sensors, the patient was alerted both by an auditory alarm and also by being able to see this on the smartwatch,” Dr. Reeves explained.
“The patient would be alerted as to where the pressure was high on the foot and that would be a trigger to offload this high pressure.” Patients would then be instructed via the smartwatch to try to offload the pressure by either walking around for 2 minutes, actively taking the weight off the foot, or removing the shoe to check for any foreign bodies.
In all, there were 58 study participants – 32 randomized to the intervention group and 26 to the control group – who had a history of diabetic foot ulcers and peripheral neuropathy but who were able to walk independently for at least 30 steps. The mean age of patients in the intervention group was 59 years, 88% were male, 72% had type 2 diabetes mellitus, with the mean duration of diabetes was 22 years. Corresponding data in the control group were 67 years, 89% male, 85% had type 2 diabetes, and 21 years’ diabetes duration.
Patients were reviewed monthly over a period of 18 months or until plantar ulceration occurred. Information on diabetic foot ulcers was collected and standardized using a previously developed mobile app (Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12[1]:169-73) and then confirmed via blinded assessment by two experts.
Dr. Reeves noted that there was no significant difference in the time to ulceration between the groups, with 77.5% and 68.4% of the intervention and control group remaining ulcer free at 18 months (P = .30). When the data were adjusted for compliance, there was an 86% reduction in the risk of reulceration in the intervention versus the control group (IRR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.63; P = .011). This analysis took into account only those study participants who had 4.5 hours or more of daily wear of the smart insoles (n = 40). On average, the insoles were worn for 6.1 hours in the control group and by 6.9 hours in the intervention group.
“We suggest that the mechanism for this beneficial effect in the present study is likely pressure offloading, which has been afforded by providing patients in the intervention group with this plantar-pressure feedback,” said Dr. Reeves.
“That’s feedback that they’ve lost naturally many years ago due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy,” he added. “So, in that respect, we would suggest that patients have really been empowered here to take control of their foot health in a way that they haven’t been able to since the onset of significant diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”
Diabetes UK provided the primary funding for the study (years 1-3), with Orpyx Medical Technologies, Canada, providing funding during the study extension (year 4). Dr. Reeves did not have any disclosures.
BERLIN – Smart insoles that warn diabetic individuals of high plantar pressures could be a simple solution to help them avoid recurrent foot ulcers, according to the results of a randomized trial.
Study participants with a history of diabetic foot ulcers wore the plantar pressure–sensing insoles (SurroSense Rx) and received feedback via sensor linked to a smart watch worn and were 71% less likely to experience a recurrent foot ulceration than were those who wore the insoles but did not get the pressure feedback (incidence rate ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.93; P = .037). The device has been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
Overall, there were few ulcers that occurred in the study, with 10 ulcers from 8,638 person-days from six patients reported in the control group and four ulcers from 11,835 person-days from four patients in the intervention group.
“Diabetic foot ulcers are a major global health and economic burden, but, in theory at least, they are ultimately preventable,” said study investigator Neil Reeves, PhD,, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Data suggest that recurrence rates for ulceration are as high as 65% at 6 years, he said, with up to a quarter of ulcers progressing to the point where some form of amputation is needed.
“In the laboratory, we can measure plantar pressures, and these are considered as a relatively accurate proxy for diabetic foot ulcer risk. So we can discriminate between those with diabetic neuropathy, and those without, and also those with a previous history of ulceration,” Dr. Reeves said.
Dr. Reeves, who is professor of musculoskeletal biomechanics at Manchester (England) Metropolitan University, observed that the rationale behind the development of the smart insoles was to move plantar pressure measurement out of the laboratory and into the real world.
The smart insoles incorporate eight discreet pressure sensors that are connected to pod worn on the front of the participant’s own shoe and that wirelessly relay pressure information to a smartwatch. Both the control and the intervention groups received the same device, Dr. Reeves pointed out, but the difference was that the only the intervention group got any pressure feedback from the sensors to the smartwatch.
“When high pressure was experienced in the intervention group on any of these sensors, the patient was alerted both by an auditory alarm and also by being able to see this on the smartwatch,” Dr. Reeves explained.
“The patient would be alerted as to where the pressure was high on the foot and that would be a trigger to offload this high pressure.” Patients would then be instructed via the smartwatch to try to offload the pressure by either walking around for 2 minutes, actively taking the weight off the foot, or removing the shoe to check for any foreign bodies.
In all, there were 58 study participants – 32 randomized to the intervention group and 26 to the control group – who had a history of diabetic foot ulcers and peripheral neuropathy but who were able to walk independently for at least 30 steps. The mean age of patients in the intervention group was 59 years, 88% were male, 72% had type 2 diabetes mellitus, with the mean duration of diabetes was 22 years. Corresponding data in the control group were 67 years, 89% male, 85% had type 2 diabetes, and 21 years’ diabetes duration.
Patients were reviewed monthly over a period of 18 months or until plantar ulceration occurred. Information on diabetic foot ulcers was collected and standardized using a previously developed mobile app (Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12[1]:169-73) and then confirmed via blinded assessment by two experts.
Dr. Reeves noted that there was no significant difference in the time to ulceration between the groups, with 77.5% and 68.4% of the intervention and control group remaining ulcer free at 18 months (P = .30). When the data were adjusted for compliance, there was an 86% reduction in the risk of reulceration in the intervention versus the control group (IRR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.63; P = .011). This analysis took into account only those study participants who had 4.5 hours or more of daily wear of the smart insoles (n = 40). On average, the insoles were worn for 6.1 hours in the control group and by 6.9 hours in the intervention group.
“We suggest that the mechanism for this beneficial effect in the present study is likely pressure offloading, which has been afforded by providing patients in the intervention group with this plantar-pressure feedback,” said Dr. Reeves.
“That’s feedback that they’ve lost naturally many years ago due to diabetic peripheral neuropathy,” he added. “So, in that respect, we would suggest that patients have really been empowered here to take control of their foot health in a way that they haven’t been able to since the onset of significant diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”
Diabetes UK provided the primary funding for the study (years 1-3), with Orpyx Medical Technologies, Canada, providing funding during the study extension (year 4). Dr. Reeves did not have any disclosures.
REPORTING FROM EASD 2018
Key clinical point: Pressure-sensing smart insoles could help warn “high-risk” individuals to offload excess pressure on their feet.
Major finding: A 71% reduction in the risk of reulceration was observed when compared with the intervention with the control group (P = .037).
Study details: Randomized, single-blind controlled randomized study of 58 adults with a history of plantar diabetic foot ulcers.
Disclosures: Diabetes UK provided the primary funding for the study (years 1-3), with Orpyx Medical Technologies providing funding during the study extension (year 4). Dr. Reeves did not have any disclosures.
Platelet-rich patch helps heal difficult diabetic foot ulcers
BERLIN –
With the LeucoPatch – which contained study participants’ own cells (platelets, fibrin, and leukocytes) – 34.1% of ulcers healed within 20 weeks versus 21.6% of ulcers that were treated using the best standard care (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.25; P = .02). Healing was defined as complete epithelialization maintained for 4 weeks, as confirmed by an observer blinded to the treatment group.
Results remained significant after adjusting for baseline wound size (adjusted OR 1.89; P = .02) and following a per-protocol analysis (aOR, 1.75; P = .048).
Furthermore, time to healing was shorter in the intervention group (P = .02), lead study investigator Frances Game, MD, of the Derby (England) Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“Successive systematic reviews from the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot have shown that there’s very poor evidence for many of the things that we do in day-to-day practice,” she said.
“Having said that, there have been some positive studies using platelets or platelet-rich plasma to improve healing of the diabetic foot,” Dr. Game noted, although results have been inconsistent. From this the idea of the LeucoPatch was born. This is an autologous active cell therapy, which according to the Danish company Reapplix that markets it, helps patients “heal themselves.”
The LeucoPatch system is made by taking 18 mL of a patient’s blood and spinning the collection tube in a centrifuge for 20 minutes to generate a three-layered disc that contains fibrin, platelets, and leukocytes. This can then be applied to the surface of the diabetic foot ulcer. Dr. Game noted that 18 mL of blood will make a 5-cm patch and more than one patch can be made from the blood sample.
“It looks like a bit of wet skin when it comes out of the centrifuge and you just put it on sole side down. It’s taking the patient’s own cells, that often aren’t getting to the ulcer because of the morbidity of the patient and vascular disease, and actually putting them where they need to be,” she explained. The patch usually becomes absorbed within a week; depending on the ulcer, reapplication may be required.
“It’s quite a straightforward procedure that’s performed the bedside,” Dr. Game observed. “That’s how we were able to recruit so many patients, as it’s quite simple.” Indeed, almost 600 people with diabetic foot ulcers agreed to participate in the study, but only those with difficult-to-treat ulcers were included after a 4-week run-in period. The 269 patients who were finally randomized were treated at 32 specialist diabetic foot clinics in the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden.
The majority of participants were male (82%) and had type 2 diabetes mellitus (83%). The mean age was 62 years and the median duration of diabetes was 16 years. The mean ulcer area was 240 mm2, with 87% being superficial, 10% reaching down to the tendon, and 3% down to the bone. In 78% of cases, the total forefoot was affected, with the plantar forefoot and hind foot affected in a respective 42% and 22% of cases.
The LeucoPatch system is already being used in several European countries, including Germany and Belgium, Dr. Game noted. However, this is the first randomized, controlled trial to demonstrate a clinical and statistically significant benefit. The data show that the weekly application of LeucoPatch is clearly of benefit in a population of patients with hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers.
“The low drop-out numbers suggest a good patient acceptability,” she noted, and “the treatment was without apparent increase in adverse events, particularly without evidence of new onset anemia.”
Cost-effectiveness data were collected throughout the study and will be available at a future date when these have been analyzed, Dr. Game said.
The LeucoPatch system received Food and Drug Administration approval in April 2017.
The research was published online in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology ahead of the presentation.
The trial was funded by Reapplix. Dr. Game reported receiving research funding from the company.
SOURCES: Game F et al. EASD 2018, Abstract 9.
BERLIN –
With the LeucoPatch – which contained study participants’ own cells (platelets, fibrin, and leukocytes) – 34.1% of ulcers healed within 20 weeks versus 21.6% of ulcers that were treated using the best standard care (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.25; P = .02). Healing was defined as complete epithelialization maintained for 4 weeks, as confirmed by an observer blinded to the treatment group.
Results remained significant after adjusting for baseline wound size (adjusted OR 1.89; P = .02) and following a per-protocol analysis (aOR, 1.75; P = .048).
Furthermore, time to healing was shorter in the intervention group (P = .02), lead study investigator Frances Game, MD, of the Derby (England) Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“Successive systematic reviews from the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot have shown that there’s very poor evidence for many of the things that we do in day-to-day practice,” she said.
“Having said that, there have been some positive studies using platelets or platelet-rich plasma to improve healing of the diabetic foot,” Dr. Game noted, although results have been inconsistent. From this the idea of the LeucoPatch was born. This is an autologous active cell therapy, which according to the Danish company Reapplix that markets it, helps patients “heal themselves.”
The LeucoPatch system is made by taking 18 mL of a patient’s blood and spinning the collection tube in a centrifuge for 20 minutes to generate a three-layered disc that contains fibrin, platelets, and leukocytes. This can then be applied to the surface of the diabetic foot ulcer. Dr. Game noted that 18 mL of blood will make a 5-cm patch and more than one patch can be made from the blood sample.
“It looks like a bit of wet skin when it comes out of the centrifuge and you just put it on sole side down. It’s taking the patient’s own cells, that often aren’t getting to the ulcer because of the morbidity of the patient and vascular disease, and actually putting them where they need to be,” she explained. The patch usually becomes absorbed within a week; depending on the ulcer, reapplication may be required.
“It’s quite a straightforward procedure that’s performed the bedside,” Dr. Game observed. “That’s how we were able to recruit so many patients, as it’s quite simple.” Indeed, almost 600 people with diabetic foot ulcers agreed to participate in the study, but only those with difficult-to-treat ulcers were included after a 4-week run-in period. The 269 patients who were finally randomized were treated at 32 specialist diabetic foot clinics in the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden.
The majority of participants were male (82%) and had type 2 diabetes mellitus (83%). The mean age was 62 years and the median duration of diabetes was 16 years. The mean ulcer area was 240 mm2, with 87% being superficial, 10% reaching down to the tendon, and 3% down to the bone. In 78% of cases, the total forefoot was affected, with the plantar forefoot and hind foot affected in a respective 42% and 22% of cases.
The LeucoPatch system is already being used in several European countries, including Germany and Belgium, Dr. Game noted. However, this is the first randomized, controlled trial to demonstrate a clinical and statistically significant benefit. The data show that the weekly application of LeucoPatch is clearly of benefit in a population of patients with hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers.
“The low drop-out numbers suggest a good patient acceptability,” she noted, and “the treatment was without apparent increase in adverse events, particularly without evidence of new onset anemia.”
Cost-effectiveness data were collected throughout the study and will be available at a future date when these have been analyzed, Dr. Game said.
The LeucoPatch system received Food and Drug Administration approval in April 2017.
The research was published online in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology ahead of the presentation.
The trial was funded by Reapplix. Dr. Game reported receiving research funding from the company.
SOURCES: Game F et al. EASD 2018, Abstract 9.
BERLIN –
With the LeucoPatch – which contained study participants’ own cells (platelets, fibrin, and leukocytes) – 34.1% of ulcers healed within 20 weeks versus 21.6% of ulcers that were treated using the best standard care (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.25; P = .02). Healing was defined as complete epithelialization maintained for 4 weeks, as confirmed by an observer blinded to the treatment group.
Results remained significant after adjusting for baseline wound size (adjusted OR 1.89; P = .02) and following a per-protocol analysis (aOR, 1.75; P = .048).
Furthermore, time to healing was shorter in the intervention group (P = .02), lead study investigator Frances Game, MD, of the Derby (England) Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“Successive systematic reviews from the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot have shown that there’s very poor evidence for many of the things that we do in day-to-day practice,” she said.
“Having said that, there have been some positive studies using platelets or platelet-rich plasma to improve healing of the diabetic foot,” Dr. Game noted, although results have been inconsistent. From this the idea of the LeucoPatch was born. This is an autologous active cell therapy, which according to the Danish company Reapplix that markets it, helps patients “heal themselves.”
The LeucoPatch system is made by taking 18 mL of a patient’s blood and spinning the collection tube in a centrifuge for 20 minutes to generate a three-layered disc that contains fibrin, platelets, and leukocytes. This can then be applied to the surface of the diabetic foot ulcer. Dr. Game noted that 18 mL of blood will make a 5-cm patch and more than one patch can be made from the blood sample.
“It looks like a bit of wet skin when it comes out of the centrifuge and you just put it on sole side down. It’s taking the patient’s own cells, that often aren’t getting to the ulcer because of the morbidity of the patient and vascular disease, and actually putting them where they need to be,” she explained. The patch usually becomes absorbed within a week; depending on the ulcer, reapplication may be required.
“It’s quite a straightforward procedure that’s performed the bedside,” Dr. Game observed. “That’s how we were able to recruit so many patients, as it’s quite simple.” Indeed, almost 600 people with diabetic foot ulcers agreed to participate in the study, but only those with difficult-to-treat ulcers were included after a 4-week run-in period. The 269 patients who were finally randomized were treated at 32 specialist diabetic foot clinics in the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden.
The majority of participants were male (82%) and had type 2 diabetes mellitus (83%). The mean age was 62 years and the median duration of diabetes was 16 years. The mean ulcer area was 240 mm2, with 87% being superficial, 10% reaching down to the tendon, and 3% down to the bone. In 78% of cases, the total forefoot was affected, with the plantar forefoot and hind foot affected in a respective 42% and 22% of cases.
The LeucoPatch system is already being used in several European countries, including Germany and Belgium, Dr. Game noted. However, this is the first randomized, controlled trial to demonstrate a clinical and statistically significant benefit. The data show that the weekly application of LeucoPatch is clearly of benefit in a population of patients with hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers.
“The low drop-out numbers suggest a good patient acceptability,” she noted, and “the treatment was without apparent increase in adverse events, particularly without evidence of new onset anemia.”
Cost-effectiveness data were collected throughout the study and will be available at a future date when these have been analyzed, Dr. Game said.
The LeucoPatch system received Food and Drug Administration approval in April 2017.
The research was published online in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology ahead of the presentation.
The trial was funded by Reapplix. Dr. Game reported receiving research funding from the company.
SOURCES: Game F et al. EASD 2018, Abstract 9.
REPORTING FROM EASD 2018
Key clinical point: Weekly application of LeucoPatch enabled greater healing in a shorter time frame than standard care.
Major finding: Within 20 weeks, 34.1% versus 21.6% of diabetic foot ulcers had healed (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.25; P = .02).
Study details: A multicenter, multinational, observer-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 269 patients with hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers.
Disclosures: The trial was funded by Reapplix. Dr. Game reported receiving research funding from the company.
Sources: Game F et al. EASD 2018, Abstract 9.
Weight-loss drug lorcaserin’s glycemic effects revealed
BERLIN – Lower rates of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and improved glycemic control were two of the metabolic effects seen with the appetite-suppressant drug lorcaserin versus placebo on top of existing lifestyle management measures in a large-scale trial of more than 12,000 overweight or obese individuals with established cardiovascular disease or T2DM and other cardiovascular risk factors.
In the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial, treatment with a twice-daily, 10-mg dose of lorcaserin for a median of 3.3 years was associated with a significant 19% reduction in the risk of incident T2DM in participants with prediabetes, compared with placebo (8.5% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.99; P = .038). The reduction in the risk of incident T2DM was even greater (23%) in people without diabetes at baseline (6.7% lorcaserin vs. 8.4% placebo; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .012).
Furthermore, in patients with T2DM who had a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7%, an absolute 0.33% reduction was seen at 1 year between the lorcaserin and placebo groups, with more modest but still significant between-group reductions (–0.09% and –0.08%) in individuals with prediabetes or normoglycemia (all P less than .0001). When baseline HbA1c levels were higher in patients with T2DM (8%), greater net reductions (0.52%) versus placebo were seen (P less than .0001).
These were some of the metabolic findings, published online in the Lancet to coincide with their presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, that add to those already released from the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial on cardiovascular safety, lead author and TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) group investigator Erin A. Bohula May, MD, observed during a press conference.
The cardiovascular safety data were presented at the 2018 annual congress of the European Society for Cardiology in August and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These showed no increase with lorcaserin versus placebo in the risk of achieving a major cardiovascular endpoint (MACE) of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.14; P less than .001 for noninferiority). There was also no difference between groups in the cumulative incidence of MACE+, which included heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, and the need for coronary revascularization (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.07; P = .55 for superiority).
“We know that weight loss can improve cardiovascular and glycemic risk factors, but it’s difficult to achieve and maintain, and weight-loss agents are guideline-recommended adjuncts to lifestyle modification,” said Dr. Bohula May, who is a cardiovascular medicine and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“However, prior to this study no agent had convincingly demonstrated cardiovascular safety in a rigorous clinical outcomes study,” she said, noting that several agents, such as the now-withdrawn rimonabant (Acomplia/Zimulti) and sibutramine (Meridia), had been shown to precipitate cardiovascular or psychiatric events, which led the Food and Drug Administration to mandate that all weight-loss drugs be assessed for cardiovascular safety. Lorcaserin (Belviq) is a centrally acting 5-HT2C agonist that works by decreasing appetite and was approved by the FDA in 2012 but is not currently available in Europe.
Long-term data on the effects of weight-loss agents on glycemic parameters were limited, hence the remit of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial was to assess both the cardiovascular and metabolic safety of lorcaserin. The drug was used on a background of lifestyle modification in 6,000 obese or overweight individuals at high risk of cardiovascular events. A further 6,000 individuals received placebo.
“Lorcaserin induced and maintained weight loss across the glycemic categories,” said coauthor and TIMI group investigator Benjamin Scirica, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who presented the metabolic data during a scientific session at the EASD meeting. Specifically, there was a net weight loss beyond that seen with placebo of 2.6 kg, 2.8 kg, and 3.3 kg in individuals with T2DM, prediabetes, and normoglycemia, respectively.
“Roughly 40% of patients with lorcaserin achieved a 5% weight loss, and about 14%-18% achieved a 10% weight loss across the glycemic categories,” Dr. Scirica reported. The corresponding values for the placebo-treated patients were 17%-18% and 4%-7%.
Naveed Sattar, MD, the independent commentator for the trial, noted the weight-loss reduction seen “was modest in the context of this trial, but I think the important point was that it was sustained. Sustained weight loss is difficult, and it was sustained on top of lifestyle and on top of the other drugs, and that is important.”
However, Dr. Sattar, who is professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), also observed that “as night follows day, glycemic improvements follow weight loss.” So, did the glycemic parameters improve purely because of the weight loss? While there is some preclinical evidence that lorcaserin may have an effect outside of its weight-lowering effects, Dr. Sattar felt this was unlikely to be clinically significant in itself.
“Obesity is probably the biggest challenge we have in the medical profession. We’ve got excellent cholesterol-lowering, blood pressure–lowering, and diabetes drugs. Yet obesity and complications are rising worldwide” and “safe weight-loss drugs remain sparse,” Dr. Sattar said.
He suggested that lorcaserin may well have an adjunctive place in the current treatment paradigm, but that place is probably “down the line” after other measures with greater weight-reducing effects or proven cardiovascular benefits were used. Not only are lifestyle modification approaches improving, Dr. Sattar said, but there are also over-the-counter options such as orlistat (Xenical), metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide receptor–1 agonists, and bariatric surgery that are likely to be used first.
“This is a fantastically well done trial, we needed it,” Dr. Sattar said. However, because there was modest weight loss and no real cardiovascular benefit (but also no cardiovascular safety concern) he called the results “a bust” saying that “we have to take them at face value for what they are.”
Dr. Sattar noted that his “gut feeling at the moment is that the clinical role for lorcaserin is probably, at best, a down-the-line adjunct in those who are still obese for additional weight reduction on top of other drugs and lifestyle modifications, particularly in those who are ‘super responders.’ ” This is so long as the safety signals remain strong and there are quality of life benefits, he added.
The study was designed by the TIMI Study Group in conjunction with the executive committee and the trial sponsor, Eisai. Dr. Bohula May and Dr. Scirica reported receiving grants from Eisai, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Sattar reported grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and being part of an advisory board or speaker’s bureau for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
SOURCES: Bohula May EA et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32328-6; Bohula May EA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:1107-17; Sattar N. EASD 2018, Session S33.
BERLIN – Lower rates of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and improved glycemic control were two of the metabolic effects seen with the appetite-suppressant drug lorcaserin versus placebo on top of existing lifestyle management measures in a large-scale trial of more than 12,000 overweight or obese individuals with established cardiovascular disease or T2DM and other cardiovascular risk factors.
In the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial, treatment with a twice-daily, 10-mg dose of lorcaserin for a median of 3.3 years was associated with a significant 19% reduction in the risk of incident T2DM in participants with prediabetes, compared with placebo (8.5% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.99; P = .038). The reduction in the risk of incident T2DM was even greater (23%) in people without diabetes at baseline (6.7% lorcaserin vs. 8.4% placebo; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .012).
Furthermore, in patients with T2DM who had a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7%, an absolute 0.33% reduction was seen at 1 year between the lorcaserin and placebo groups, with more modest but still significant between-group reductions (–0.09% and –0.08%) in individuals with prediabetes or normoglycemia (all P less than .0001). When baseline HbA1c levels were higher in patients with T2DM (8%), greater net reductions (0.52%) versus placebo were seen (P less than .0001).
These were some of the metabolic findings, published online in the Lancet to coincide with their presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, that add to those already released from the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial on cardiovascular safety, lead author and TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) group investigator Erin A. Bohula May, MD, observed during a press conference.
The cardiovascular safety data were presented at the 2018 annual congress of the European Society for Cardiology in August and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These showed no increase with lorcaserin versus placebo in the risk of achieving a major cardiovascular endpoint (MACE) of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.14; P less than .001 for noninferiority). There was also no difference between groups in the cumulative incidence of MACE+, which included heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, and the need for coronary revascularization (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.07; P = .55 for superiority).
“We know that weight loss can improve cardiovascular and glycemic risk factors, but it’s difficult to achieve and maintain, and weight-loss agents are guideline-recommended adjuncts to lifestyle modification,” said Dr. Bohula May, who is a cardiovascular medicine and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“However, prior to this study no agent had convincingly demonstrated cardiovascular safety in a rigorous clinical outcomes study,” she said, noting that several agents, such as the now-withdrawn rimonabant (Acomplia/Zimulti) and sibutramine (Meridia), had been shown to precipitate cardiovascular or psychiatric events, which led the Food and Drug Administration to mandate that all weight-loss drugs be assessed for cardiovascular safety. Lorcaserin (Belviq) is a centrally acting 5-HT2C agonist that works by decreasing appetite and was approved by the FDA in 2012 but is not currently available in Europe.
Long-term data on the effects of weight-loss agents on glycemic parameters were limited, hence the remit of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial was to assess both the cardiovascular and metabolic safety of lorcaserin. The drug was used on a background of lifestyle modification in 6,000 obese or overweight individuals at high risk of cardiovascular events. A further 6,000 individuals received placebo.
“Lorcaserin induced and maintained weight loss across the glycemic categories,” said coauthor and TIMI group investigator Benjamin Scirica, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who presented the metabolic data during a scientific session at the EASD meeting. Specifically, there was a net weight loss beyond that seen with placebo of 2.6 kg, 2.8 kg, and 3.3 kg in individuals with T2DM, prediabetes, and normoglycemia, respectively.
“Roughly 40% of patients with lorcaserin achieved a 5% weight loss, and about 14%-18% achieved a 10% weight loss across the glycemic categories,” Dr. Scirica reported. The corresponding values for the placebo-treated patients were 17%-18% and 4%-7%.
Naveed Sattar, MD, the independent commentator for the trial, noted the weight-loss reduction seen “was modest in the context of this trial, but I think the important point was that it was sustained. Sustained weight loss is difficult, and it was sustained on top of lifestyle and on top of the other drugs, and that is important.”
However, Dr. Sattar, who is professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), also observed that “as night follows day, glycemic improvements follow weight loss.” So, did the glycemic parameters improve purely because of the weight loss? While there is some preclinical evidence that lorcaserin may have an effect outside of its weight-lowering effects, Dr. Sattar felt this was unlikely to be clinically significant in itself.
“Obesity is probably the biggest challenge we have in the medical profession. We’ve got excellent cholesterol-lowering, blood pressure–lowering, and diabetes drugs. Yet obesity and complications are rising worldwide” and “safe weight-loss drugs remain sparse,” Dr. Sattar said.
He suggested that lorcaserin may well have an adjunctive place in the current treatment paradigm, but that place is probably “down the line” after other measures with greater weight-reducing effects or proven cardiovascular benefits were used. Not only are lifestyle modification approaches improving, Dr. Sattar said, but there are also over-the-counter options such as orlistat (Xenical), metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide receptor–1 agonists, and bariatric surgery that are likely to be used first.
“This is a fantastically well done trial, we needed it,” Dr. Sattar said. However, because there was modest weight loss and no real cardiovascular benefit (but also no cardiovascular safety concern) he called the results “a bust” saying that “we have to take them at face value for what they are.”
Dr. Sattar noted that his “gut feeling at the moment is that the clinical role for lorcaserin is probably, at best, a down-the-line adjunct in those who are still obese for additional weight reduction on top of other drugs and lifestyle modifications, particularly in those who are ‘super responders.’ ” This is so long as the safety signals remain strong and there are quality of life benefits, he added.
The study was designed by the TIMI Study Group in conjunction with the executive committee and the trial sponsor, Eisai. Dr. Bohula May and Dr. Scirica reported receiving grants from Eisai, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Sattar reported grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and being part of an advisory board or speaker’s bureau for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
SOURCES: Bohula May EA et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32328-6; Bohula May EA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:1107-17; Sattar N. EASD 2018, Session S33.
BERLIN – Lower rates of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and improved glycemic control were two of the metabolic effects seen with the appetite-suppressant drug lorcaserin versus placebo on top of existing lifestyle management measures in a large-scale trial of more than 12,000 overweight or obese individuals with established cardiovascular disease or T2DM and other cardiovascular risk factors.
In the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial, treatment with a twice-daily, 10-mg dose of lorcaserin for a median of 3.3 years was associated with a significant 19% reduction in the risk of incident T2DM in participants with prediabetes, compared with placebo (8.5% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.99; P = .038). The reduction in the risk of incident T2DM was even greater (23%) in people without diabetes at baseline (6.7% lorcaserin vs. 8.4% placebo; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .012).
Furthermore, in patients with T2DM who had a mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7%, an absolute 0.33% reduction was seen at 1 year between the lorcaserin and placebo groups, with more modest but still significant between-group reductions (–0.09% and –0.08%) in individuals with prediabetes or normoglycemia (all P less than .0001). When baseline HbA1c levels were higher in patients with T2DM (8%), greater net reductions (0.52%) versus placebo were seen (P less than .0001).
These were some of the metabolic findings, published online in the Lancet to coincide with their presentation at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, that add to those already released from the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial on cardiovascular safety, lead author and TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) group investigator Erin A. Bohula May, MD, observed during a press conference.
The cardiovascular safety data were presented at the 2018 annual congress of the European Society for Cardiology in August and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These showed no increase with lorcaserin versus placebo in the risk of achieving a major cardiovascular endpoint (MACE) of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.14; P less than .001 for noninferiority). There was also no difference between groups in the cumulative incidence of MACE+, which included heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, and the need for coronary revascularization (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.07; P = .55 for superiority).
“We know that weight loss can improve cardiovascular and glycemic risk factors, but it’s difficult to achieve and maintain, and weight-loss agents are guideline-recommended adjuncts to lifestyle modification,” said Dr. Bohula May, who is a cardiovascular medicine and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“However, prior to this study no agent had convincingly demonstrated cardiovascular safety in a rigorous clinical outcomes study,” she said, noting that several agents, such as the now-withdrawn rimonabant (Acomplia/Zimulti) and sibutramine (Meridia), had been shown to precipitate cardiovascular or psychiatric events, which led the Food and Drug Administration to mandate that all weight-loss drugs be assessed for cardiovascular safety. Lorcaserin (Belviq) is a centrally acting 5-HT2C agonist that works by decreasing appetite and was approved by the FDA in 2012 but is not currently available in Europe.
Long-term data on the effects of weight-loss agents on glycemic parameters were limited, hence the remit of the CAMELLIA-TIMI 61 trial was to assess both the cardiovascular and metabolic safety of lorcaserin. The drug was used on a background of lifestyle modification in 6,000 obese or overweight individuals at high risk of cardiovascular events. A further 6,000 individuals received placebo.
“Lorcaserin induced and maintained weight loss across the glycemic categories,” said coauthor and TIMI group investigator Benjamin Scirica, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who presented the metabolic data during a scientific session at the EASD meeting. Specifically, there was a net weight loss beyond that seen with placebo of 2.6 kg, 2.8 kg, and 3.3 kg in individuals with T2DM, prediabetes, and normoglycemia, respectively.
“Roughly 40% of patients with lorcaserin achieved a 5% weight loss, and about 14%-18% achieved a 10% weight loss across the glycemic categories,” Dr. Scirica reported. The corresponding values for the placebo-treated patients were 17%-18% and 4%-7%.
Naveed Sattar, MD, the independent commentator for the trial, noted the weight-loss reduction seen “was modest in the context of this trial, but I think the important point was that it was sustained. Sustained weight loss is difficult, and it was sustained on top of lifestyle and on top of the other drugs, and that is important.”
However, Dr. Sattar, who is professor and honorary consultant in cardiovascular and medical sciences at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), also observed that “as night follows day, glycemic improvements follow weight loss.” So, did the glycemic parameters improve purely because of the weight loss? While there is some preclinical evidence that lorcaserin may have an effect outside of its weight-lowering effects, Dr. Sattar felt this was unlikely to be clinically significant in itself.
“Obesity is probably the biggest challenge we have in the medical profession. We’ve got excellent cholesterol-lowering, blood pressure–lowering, and diabetes drugs. Yet obesity and complications are rising worldwide” and “safe weight-loss drugs remain sparse,” Dr. Sattar said.
He suggested that lorcaserin may well have an adjunctive place in the current treatment paradigm, but that place is probably “down the line” after other measures with greater weight-reducing effects or proven cardiovascular benefits were used. Not only are lifestyle modification approaches improving, Dr. Sattar said, but there are also over-the-counter options such as orlistat (Xenical), metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagonlike peptide receptor–1 agonists, and bariatric surgery that are likely to be used first.
“This is a fantastically well done trial, we needed it,” Dr. Sattar said. However, because there was modest weight loss and no real cardiovascular benefit (but also no cardiovascular safety concern) he called the results “a bust” saying that “we have to take them at face value for what they are.”
Dr. Sattar noted that his “gut feeling at the moment is that the clinical role for lorcaserin is probably, at best, a down-the-line adjunct in those who are still obese for additional weight reduction on top of other drugs and lifestyle modifications, particularly in those who are ‘super responders.’ ” This is so long as the safety signals remain strong and there are quality of life benefits, he added.
The study was designed by the TIMI Study Group in conjunction with the executive committee and the trial sponsor, Eisai. Dr. Bohula May and Dr. Scirica reported receiving grants from Eisai, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Sattar reported grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and being part of an advisory board or speaker’s bureau for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
SOURCES: Bohula May EA et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32328-6; Bohula May EA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379:1107-17; Sattar N. EASD 2018, Session S33.
REPORTING FROM EASD 2018
Key clinical point: Lorcaserin is an adjunctive treatment to lifestyle modification for chronic weight management that may improve metabolic health.
Major finding: A total of 8.5% of lorcaserin-treated individuals with prediabetes versus 10.3% of placebo-treated individuals developed incident type 2 diabetes mellitus at 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.99; P = .038).
Study details: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 12,000 overweight or obese individuals with established cardiovascular disease, established or no type 2 diabetes mellitus, and other cardiovascular risk factors.
Disclosures: The study was designed by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group in conjunction with the executive committee and the trial sponsor, Eisai. Dr. Bohula May and Dr. Scirica reported receiving grants from Eisai, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Sattar reported grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim and being part of an advisory board or speaker’s bureau for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
Sources: Bohula May EA et al. Lancet. 2018. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32328-6; Bohula May EA et al. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1107-17; Sattar N. EASD 2018, Session S33.
Nf-L levels predictive of brain atrophy, disability in progressive MS
BERLIN – Neurofilament light chain (Nf-L) levels are higher in the plasma of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) than primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) irrespective of age, according to an analysis of blood samples from two large phase 3 trials.
“Our data suggest that Nf-L should be considered as an informative endpoint for phase 2 studies in SPMS,” said the presenting study author Ludwig Kappos, MD, at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Much of the research on using Nf-L as a biomarker in MS to date has looked at patients with relapsing-remitting MS and the researchers wanted to see if Nf-L might be a useful biomarker in progressive MS because drug development in this area needs long-term and large trials to show an effect of a drug on disability. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging measures show only a modest association with disease evolution in SPMS and PPMS, and, as Nf-L is specific to neuronal damage, it should reflect damage to the brain and spinal cord, Dr. Kappos explained.
The aim of the study was to compare Nf-L levels in the two progressive subtypes of MS – SPMS and PPMS – and to see if it had any predictive value in determining the degree of brain atrophy or disability. Other objectives were to measure the sensitivity for Nf-L to detect treatment effects, and to estimate how big a sample size would be needed in a phase 2 study if it was used as a primary endpoint.
Blood samples from 1,830 patients who had participated in one of two phase 3 studies of siponimod in SPMS (EXPAND) and fingolimod (Gilyena) in PPMS (INFORMS). Nf-L levels were measured retrospectively in plasma using the SIMOA Nf-L immunoassay and categorized as being low (less than 30 pg/mL), medium (30-60 pg/mL), or high (greater than 60 pg/mL). Brain volume change on MRI was calculated using the SIENA (Structural Image Evaluation, using Normalization, of Atrophy) method, and disability changes assessed were evaluated by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score
“One of the confounders of measuring Nf-L is age,” Dr. Kappos acknowledged, “but we see a difference between SPMS and PPMS that is robust along the spectrum of ages.” The geometric mean of Nf-L at baseline was 32.1 pg/mL in patients with SPMS (n = 1,452) and 22.0 pg/mL in those with PPMS (n = 378).
Multiple regression analysis showed that, in both SPMS and PPMS patients, higher Nf-L levels were associated with older age and higher disease activity (increased EDSS score, more gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) lesions and higher T2 lesion load).
Greater brain loss was seen at both 12 and 24 months in patients with high versus low Nf-L levels at baseline in both the SPMS and PPMS groups. For example, comparing high versus low Nf-L in SPMS, the mean brain volume change from baseline was –0.8% vs. –0.2% (P less than .0001) at 12 months and –1.5% vs. –0.5% at 24 months (P less than .0001). Corresponding values for PPMS were –0.8% vs. –0.4% (P = .0044) and –1.9% vs. –0.8% (P less than .0001).
Nf-L levels of 30 pg/mL were associated with a 32% increased risk of disability progression in patients with SPMS (P = .0055) and a 49% increased risk of disability progression in patients with PPMS (P = .0268).
In both groups of progressive MS patients, Nf-L levels were reduced in response to treatment at both 12 and 24 months, which remained significant.
“So, what about sample size calculation for a 1-year, phase 2 study with Nf-L as a primary endpoint?” Dr. Kappos queried. Assuming a reduction in Nf-L of 20% with a test drug, such a study would be likely to need to include 188 patients, or 94 patients per single arm to have 80% statistical power. To see a 30% reduction in Nf-L, fewer total and single-arm numbers would be needed, at 74 and 37 participants, respectively.
The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Kappos disclosed that his institution (University Hospital Basel) had received steering committee, advisory board, and consultancy fees in the last 3 years that had been used exclusively for research support at the department from Novartis and a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Research of the MS Centre in Basel has been supported by grants from Bayer, Biogen, Novartis, the Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the European Union, and Roche Research Foundations.
SOURCE: Kuhle J et al. ECTRIMS 2018. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):111, Abstract 286.
BERLIN – Neurofilament light chain (Nf-L) levels are higher in the plasma of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) than primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) irrespective of age, according to an analysis of blood samples from two large phase 3 trials.
“Our data suggest that Nf-L should be considered as an informative endpoint for phase 2 studies in SPMS,” said the presenting study author Ludwig Kappos, MD, at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Much of the research on using Nf-L as a biomarker in MS to date has looked at patients with relapsing-remitting MS and the researchers wanted to see if Nf-L might be a useful biomarker in progressive MS because drug development in this area needs long-term and large trials to show an effect of a drug on disability. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging measures show only a modest association with disease evolution in SPMS and PPMS, and, as Nf-L is specific to neuronal damage, it should reflect damage to the brain and spinal cord, Dr. Kappos explained.
The aim of the study was to compare Nf-L levels in the two progressive subtypes of MS – SPMS and PPMS – and to see if it had any predictive value in determining the degree of brain atrophy or disability. Other objectives were to measure the sensitivity for Nf-L to detect treatment effects, and to estimate how big a sample size would be needed in a phase 2 study if it was used as a primary endpoint.
Blood samples from 1,830 patients who had participated in one of two phase 3 studies of siponimod in SPMS (EXPAND) and fingolimod (Gilyena) in PPMS (INFORMS). Nf-L levels were measured retrospectively in plasma using the SIMOA Nf-L immunoassay and categorized as being low (less than 30 pg/mL), medium (30-60 pg/mL), or high (greater than 60 pg/mL). Brain volume change on MRI was calculated using the SIENA (Structural Image Evaluation, using Normalization, of Atrophy) method, and disability changes assessed were evaluated by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score
“One of the confounders of measuring Nf-L is age,” Dr. Kappos acknowledged, “but we see a difference between SPMS and PPMS that is robust along the spectrum of ages.” The geometric mean of Nf-L at baseline was 32.1 pg/mL in patients with SPMS (n = 1,452) and 22.0 pg/mL in those with PPMS (n = 378).
Multiple regression analysis showed that, in both SPMS and PPMS patients, higher Nf-L levels were associated with older age and higher disease activity (increased EDSS score, more gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) lesions and higher T2 lesion load).
Greater brain loss was seen at both 12 and 24 months in patients with high versus low Nf-L levels at baseline in both the SPMS and PPMS groups. For example, comparing high versus low Nf-L in SPMS, the mean brain volume change from baseline was –0.8% vs. –0.2% (P less than .0001) at 12 months and –1.5% vs. –0.5% at 24 months (P less than .0001). Corresponding values for PPMS were –0.8% vs. –0.4% (P = .0044) and –1.9% vs. –0.8% (P less than .0001).
Nf-L levels of 30 pg/mL were associated with a 32% increased risk of disability progression in patients with SPMS (P = .0055) and a 49% increased risk of disability progression in patients with PPMS (P = .0268).
In both groups of progressive MS patients, Nf-L levels were reduced in response to treatment at both 12 and 24 months, which remained significant.
“So, what about sample size calculation for a 1-year, phase 2 study with Nf-L as a primary endpoint?” Dr. Kappos queried. Assuming a reduction in Nf-L of 20% with a test drug, such a study would be likely to need to include 188 patients, or 94 patients per single arm to have 80% statistical power. To see a 30% reduction in Nf-L, fewer total and single-arm numbers would be needed, at 74 and 37 participants, respectively.
The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Kappos disclosed that his institution (University Hospital Basel) had received steering committee, advisory board, and consultancy fees in the last 3 years that had been used exclusively for research support at the department from Novartis and a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Research of the MS Centre in Basel has been supported by grants from Bayer, Biogen, Novartis, the Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the European Union, and Roche Research Foundations.
SOURCE: Kuhle J et al. ECTRIMS 2018. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):111, Abstract 286.
BERLIN – Neurofilament light chain (Nf-L) levels are higher in the plasma of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) than primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) irrespective of age, according to an analysis of blood samples from two large phase 3 trials.
“Our data suggest that Nf-L should be considered as an informative endpoint for phase 2 studies in SPMS,” said the presenting study author Ludwig Kappos, MD, at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
Much of the research on using Nf-L as a biomarker in MS to date has looked at patients with relapsing-remitting MS and the researchers wanted to see if Nf-L might be a useful biomarker in progressive MS because drug development in this area needs long-term and large trials to show an effect of a drug on disability. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging measures show only a modest association with disease evolution in SPMS and PPMS, and, as Nf-L is specific to neuronal damage, it should reflect damage to the brain and spinal cord, Dr. Kappos explained.
The aim of the study was to compare Nf-L levels in the two progressive subtypes of MS – SPMS and PPMS – and to see if it had any predictive value in determining the degree of brain atrophy or disability. Other objectives were to measure the sensitivity for Nf-L to detect treatment effects, and to estimate how big a sample size would be needed in a phase 2 study if it was used as a primary endpoint.
Blood samples from 1,830 patients who had participated in one of two phase 3 studies of siponimod in SPMS (EXPAND) and fingolimod (Gilyena) in PPMS (INFORMS). Nf-L levels were measured retrospectively in plasma using the SIMOA Nf-L immunoassay and categorized as being low (less than 30 pg/mL), medium (30-60 pg/mL), or high (greater than 60 pg/mL). Brain volume change on MRI was calculated using the SIENA (Structural Image Evaluation, using Normalization, of Atrophy) method, and disability changes assessed were evaluated by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score
“One of the confounders of measuring Nf-L is age,” Dr. Kappos acknowledged, “but we see a difference between SPMS and PPMS that is robust along the spectrum of ages.” The geometric mean of Nf-L at baseline was 32.1 pg/mL in patients with SPMS (n = 1,452) and 22.0 pg/mL in those with PPMS (n = 378).
Multiple regression analysis showed that, in both SPMS and PPMS patients, higher Nf-L levels were associated with older age and higher disease activity (increased EDSS score, more gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) lesions and higher T2 lesion load).
Greater brain loss was seen at both 12 and 24 months in patients with high versus low Nf-L levels at baseline in both the SPMS and PPMS groups. For example, comparing high versus low Nf-L in SPMS, the mean brain volume change from baseline was –0.8% vs. –0.2% (P less than .0001) at 12 months and –1.5% vs. –0.5% at 24 months (P less than .0001). Corresponding values for PPMS were –0.8% vs. –0.4% (P = .0044) and –1.9% vs. –0.8% (P less than .0001).
Nf-L levels of 30 pg/mL were associated with a 32% increased risk of disability progression in patients with SPMS (P = .0055) and a 49% increased risk of disability progression in patients with PPMS (P = .0268).
In both groups of progressive MS patients, Nf-L levels were reduced in response to treatment at both 12 and 24 months, which remained significant.
“So, what about sample size calculation for a 1-year, phase 2 study with Nf-L as a primary endpoint?” Dr. Kappos queried. Assuming a reduction in Nf-L of 20% with a test drug, such a study would be likely to need to include 188 patients, or 94 patients per single arm to have 80% statistical power. To see a 30% reduction in Nf-L, fewer total and single-arm numbers would be needed, at 74 and 37 participants, respectively.
The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Kappos disclosed that his institution (University Hospital Basel) had received steering committee, advisory board, and consultancy fees in the last 3 years that had been used exclusively for research support at the department from Novartis and a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Research of the MS Centre in Basel has been supported by grants from Bayer, Biogen, Novartis, the Swiss MS Society, the Swiss National Research Foundation, the European Union, and Roche Research Foundations.
SOURCE: Kuhle J et al. ECTRIMS 2018. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):111, Abstract 286.
REPORTING FROM ECTRIMS 2018
Key clinical point: Neurofilament light chain level was predictive of changes in brain atrophy, disability and sensitive to treatment effect in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.
Major finding: Comparing high versus low baseline Nf-L in SPMS, the mean brain volume change from baseline was –0.8% vs. –0.2% (P less than .0001) at 12 months. Elevated Nf-L was associated with a 32% increase risk of disability progression.
Study details: Include study type and number of subjects.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Kappos disclosed that his institution (University Hospital Basel) had received steering committee, advisory board, and consultancy fees in the last 3 years that had been used exclusively for research support at the department from Novartis and many other pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Source: Kuhle J et al. ECTRIMS 2018. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):111, Abstract 286.
Relapsing-remitting MS best treated within 6 months of onset
BERLIN – according to real-world data from the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network.
Receiving disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) within 6 months of diagnosis was associated with a 28% reduction in the risk of reaching an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 3.0 or more for the first time at 12 months versus receiving treatment after 6 months (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.90; P = .003).
Results were not significant, looking at all the other periods tested at 6-month intervals from 1 year up to 5 years after diagnosis. HRs (95% CIs) comparing a first DMT given at 1 year, 1.5 years, 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years, 3.5 years, 4 years, 4.5 years, and 5 years were a respective 0.90 (0.78-1.03), 0.89 (0.79-1.01), 0.99 (0.88-1.11), 0.95 (0.85-1.06), 1.01 (0.90-1.12), 0.97 (0.86-1.09), 1.09 (0.96-1.22), 1.11 (0.98-1.25), and 1.06 (0.93-1.20).
“To date, these data represent the largest RRMS cohort with the longest follow-up ever analyzed to determine the long-term effectiveness of the early start of DMTs,” said Pietro Iaffaldano, MD, at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“This study also provides evidence that data sharing from MS registries and databases is feasible,” noted Dr. Iaffaldano, who is assistant professor of neurology at the University of Bari (Italy). Such an approach can provide enough statistical power to detect the impact of treatment on disability outcomes in the long term, he suggested.
For the study, a cohort of 11,934 patients was obtained by screening more than 149,636 patients from five large registries and databases of MS patients – the Italian MS Registry, the Swedish MS Registry, the Danish MS Registry, OFSEP (Observatoire Français de al Sclérose en Plaques), and MSBase. Patients were included in the current analysis if they had at least 10 years of follow-up, had at least three EDSS evaluations, and at least one DMT prescription.
“It is well known that randomized, controlled trials support the early start of treatment in MS, but open-label extensions of the same trials reported inconsistent results about the long-term benefit on disability accumulation,” Dr. Iaffaldano explained. Further, recent observational studies have suggested that initiating DMTs early might not only delay the accumulation of disability but perhaps also death.
The aim of the research was thus to look at what effect the time interval from disease onset to the first administration of a DMT might have on long-term disability accumulation, as measured by the EDSS, in patients with RRMS.
The population of patients studied was mostly (71%) female, with a median age of 27 years at disease onset. The number of relapses prior to starting a DMT was two and the baseline EDSS was 2.0. In almost all (98.9%) cases, DMT was used as first-line treatment (second line in 1.1% of cases). The median follow-up was 13.2 years and cumulative DMT exposure was 10.5 years.
The work was supported by Biogen International on the basis of a sponsored research agreement with the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network. Dr. Iaffaldano has served on scientific advisory boards for and received funding for travel and/or speaker honoraria from Biogen and other companies that market DMTs for MS. Several study authors are employees of Biogen, and other study authors also reported financial ties to Biogen and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Iaffaldano P et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):71-2, Abstract 204.
BERLIN – according to real-world data from the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network.
Receiving disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) within 6 months of diagnosis was associated with a 28% reduction in the risk of reaching an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 3.0 or more for the first time at 12 months versus receiving treatment after 6 months (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.90; P = .003).
Results were not significant, looking at all the other periods tested at 6-month intervals from 1 year up to 5 years after diagnosis. HRs (95% CIs) comparing a first DMT given at 1 year, 1.5 years, 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years, 3.5 years, 4 years, 4.5 years, and 5 years were a respective 0.90 (0.78-1.03), 0.89 (0.79-1.01), 0.99 (0.88-1.11), 0.95 (0.85-1.06), 1.01 (0.90-1.12), 0.97 (0.86-1.09), 1.09 (0.96-1.22), 1.11 (0.98-1.25), and 1.06 (0.93-1.20).
“To date, these data represent the largest RRMS cohort with the longest follow-up ever analyzed to determine the long-term effectiveness of the early start of DMTs,” said Pietro Iaffaldano, MD, at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“This study also provides evidence that data sharing from MS registries and databases is feasible,” noted Dr. Iaffaldano, who is assistant professor of neurology at the University of Bari (Italy). Such an approach can provide enough statistical power to detect the impact of treatment on disability outcomes in the long term, he suggested.
For the study, a cohort of 11,934 patients was obtained by screening more than 149,636 patients from five large registries and databases of MS patients – the Italian MS Registry, the Swedish MS Registry, the Danish MS Registry, OFSEP (Observatoire Français de al Sclérose en Plaques), and MSBase. Patients were included in the current analysis if they had at least 10 years of follow-up, had at least three EDSS evaluations, and at least one DMT prescription.
“It is well known that randomized, controlled trials support the early start of treatment in MS, but open-label extensions of the same trials reported inconsistent results about the long-term benefit on disability accumulation,” Dr. Iaffaldano explained. Further, recent observational studies have suggested that initiating DMTs early might not only delay the accumulation of disability but perhaps also death.
The aim of the research was thus to look at what effect the time interval from disease onset to the first administration of a DMT might have on long-term disability accumulation, as measured by the EDSS, in patients with RRMS.
The population of patients studied was mostly (71%) female, with a median age of 27 years at disease onset. The number of relapses prior to starting a DMT was two and the baseline EDSS was 2.0. In almost all (98.9%) cases, DMT was used as first-line treatment (second line in 1.1% of cases). The median follow-up was 13.2 years and cumulative DMT exposure was 10.5 years.
The work was supported by Biogen International on the basis of a sponsored research agreement with the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network. Dr. Iaffaldano has served on scientific advisory boards for and received funding for travel and/or speaker honoraria from Biogen and other companies that market DMTs for MS. Several study authors are employees of Biogen, and other study authors also reported financial ties to Biogen and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Iaffaldano P et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):71-2, Abstract 204.
BERLIN – according to real-world data from the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network.
Receiving disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) within 6 months of diagnosis was associated with a 28% reduction in the risk of reaching an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 3.0 or more for the first time at 12 months versus receiving treatment after 6 months (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.90; P = .003).
Results were not significant, looking at all the other periods tested at 6-month intervals from 1 year up to 5 years after diagnosis. HRs (95% CIs) comparing a first DMT given at 1 year, 1.5 years, 2 years, 2.5 years, 3 years, 3.5 years, 4 years, 4.5 years, and 5 years were a respective 0.90 (0.78-1.03), 0.89 (0.79-1.01), 0.99 (0.88-1.11), 0.95 (0.85-1.06), 1.01 (0.90-1.12), 0.97 (0.86-1.09), 1.09 (0.96-1.22), 1.11 (0.98-1.25), and 1.06 (0.93-1.20).
“To date, these data represent the largest RRMS cohort with the longest follow-up ever analyzed to determine the long-term effectiveness of the early start of DMTs,” said Pietro Iaffaldano, MD, at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.
“This study also provides evidence that data sharing from MS registries and databases is feasible,” noted Dr. Iaffaldano, who is assistant professor of neurology at the University of Bari (Italy). Such an approach can provide enough statistical power to detect the impact of treatment on disability outcomes in the long term, he suggested.
For the study, a cohort of 11,934 patients was obtained by screening more than 149,636 patients from five large registries and databases of MS patients – the Italian MS Registry, the Swedish MS Registry, the Danish MS Registry, OFSEP (Observatoire Français de al Sclérose en Plaques), and MSBase. Patients were included in the current analysis if they had at least 10 years of follow-up, had at least three EDSS evaluations, and at least one DMT prescription.
“It is well known that randomized, controlled trials support the early start of treatment in MS, but open-label extensions of the same trials reported inconsistent results about the long-term benefit on disability accumulation,” Dr. Iaffaldano explained. Further, recent observational studies have suggested that initiating DMTs early might not only delay the accumulation of disability but perhaps also death.
The aim of the research was thus to look at what effect the time interval from disease onset to the first administration of a DMT might have on long-term disability accumulation, as measured by the EDSS, in patients with RRMS.
The population of patients studied was mostly (71%) female, with a median age of 27 years at disease onset. The number of relapses prior to starting a DMT was two and the baseline EDSS was 2.0. In almost all (98.9%) cases, DMT was used as first-line treatment (second line in 1.1% of cases). The median follow-up was 13.2 years and cumulative DMT exposure was 10.5 years.
The work was supported by Biogen International on the basis of a sponsored research agreement with the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network. Dr. Iaffaldano has served on scientific advisory boards for and received funding for travel and/or speaker honoraria from Biogen and other companies that market DMTs for MS. Several study authors are employees of Biogen, and other study authors also reported financial ties to Biogen and other pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Iaffaldano P et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):71-2, Abstract 204.
REPORTING FROM ECTRIMS 2018
Key clinical point: Less disease progression occurs if disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are given early in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).
Major finding: DMTs within 6 months vs. later decreased the risk of confirmed first disability progression at 12 months by 28% (P = .003).
Study details: 11,934 patients with RRMS with at least 10 years’ follow-up, three or more Expanded Disability Status Scale evaluations, and at least one DMT prescription.
Disclosures: The work was supported by Biogen International on the basis of a sponsored research agreement with the Big Multiple Sclerosis Data Network. Dr. Iaffaldano has served on scientific advisory boards for and received funding for travel and/or speaker honoraria from Biogen and other companies that market DMTs for MS. Several study authors are employees of Biogen, and other study authors also reported financial ties to Biogen and other pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Iaffaldano P et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):71-2, Abstract 204.
Mood disorders worsen multiple sclerosis disability
BERLIN – Depression and bipolar disorder are major risk factors for worsening disability in people with multiple sclerosis, according to the results of a large Swedish registry-based study.
The presence of depression increased the risk of having a sustained Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3.0 by 54% and 4.0 by 87%, and it doubled the risk of an EDSS of 6.0.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment also upped the risk of greater disability, with patients exposed to SSRIs having a 40% increased risk of a sustained EDSS of 3.0, a 97% chance of having a sustained EDSS of 4.0, and 2.2-fold increased risk of a sustained EDSS of 6.0.
“We know that mood disorders are highly prevalent in people with multiple sclerosis,” Stefanie Binzer, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. She gave her presentation at the meeting on Oct. 10, which was World Mental Health Day.
The presence of mood disorders is associated with reduced quality of life, said Dr. Binzer of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Furthermore, depression is the major risk factor for suicidality in patients with MS. However, before this study the effect of having a comorbid mood disorder on MS patients’ disability levels had not been established.
The investigators analyzed data from 5,875 patients in the Swedish MS registry between 2001 and 2014. By matching these patients to records in the Swedish National Patient Registry and the Swedish National Prescribed Drug Registry, they found that 8.5% (n = 502) had an International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), code for depression. Of these, 261 had received a diagnosis of depression before their diagnosis of MS.
Of 3,817 patients with MS onset between 2005 and 2014, 27.4% (n = 1,048) had collected at least one prescription for an SSRI.
“What we found was that MS patients with either an ICD code for depression or having been exposed to SSRIs had a significantly increased risk of reaching EDSS 3.0,” Dr. Binzer reported. The age at which patients reached these milestones were younger in both groups when compared with MS patients without depression, she observed.
“The difference between the groups [MS with and MS without depression] seemed to increased with EDSS,” Dr. Binzer said.
Although not statistically significant, there was a trend for patients with depression to be more likely to convert to secondary progressive MS, with a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.1).
“For a sensitivity analysis, we found that those who had depression prior to their first MS symptom, the median age when they reached EDSS 3.0 and 4.0 was reduced by 3 and 7 years, respectively,” Dr. Binzer said, adding that, unfortunately, there wasn’t enough power to look at the other endpoints.
In regard to bipolar disorder, 1.5% (n = 200) of 13,125 MS patients diagnosed between 1973 and 2014 were identified with this mood disorder. Its presence significantly increased the risk of MS patients reaching an EDSS score of 4.0 by 58% (95% CI, 1.1-2.28), but not EDSS 3.0 (HR = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92) or 6.0 (HR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79-1.69). The latter could be due to smaller sample size, Dr. Binzer suggested.
The investigators’ analysis of the results stratified by sex, conducted because men tend to fare worse than women with MS and progress faster, showed that for both depression and bipolar disorder, men were at significantly higher risk of reaching sustained disability milestones. Indeed, compared with women, men with depression had a 61% increased risk and those with bipolar disorder a 31% increased risk of reaching an EDSS score of 6.0. They also had 51% and 32% increased risks of conversion to secondary progressive MS.
“We don’t know the mechanisms that underlie these associations,” Dr. Binzer noted. “Irrespective of the underlying mechanisms, [the study] clearly shows that it’s imperative that we recognize, early, mood disorders in MS patients, and manage them effectively in order to provide better care and hopefully reduce MS disability worsening.”
The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr. Binzer has received speaker fees and travel grants from Biogen.
SOURCE: Binzer S et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):41. Abstract 99.
BERLIN – Depression and bipolar disorder are major risk factors for worsening disability in people with multiple sclerosis, according to the results of a large Swedish registry-based study.
The presence of depression increased the risk of having a sustained Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3.0 by 54% and 4.0 by 87%, and it doubled the risk of an EDSS of 6.0.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment also upped the risk of greater disability, with patients exposed to SSRIs having a 40% increased risk of a sustained EDSS of 3.0, a 97% chance of having a sustained EDSS of 4.0, and 2.2-fold increased risk of a sustained EDSS of 6.0.
“We know that mood disorders are highly prevalent in people with multiple sclerosis,” Stefanie Binzer, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. She gave her presentation at the meeting on Oct. 10, which was World Mental Health Day.
The presence of mood disorders is associated with reduced quality of life, said Dr. Binzer of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Furthermore, depression is the major risk factor for suicidality in patients with MS. However, before this study the effect of having a comorbid mood disorder on MS patients’ disability levels had not been established.
The investigators analyzed data from 5,875 patients in the Swedish MS registry between 2001 and 2014. By matching these patients to records in the Swedish National Patient Registry and the Swedish National Prescribed Drug Registry, they found that 8.5% (n = 502) had an International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), code for depression. Of these, 261 had received a diagnosis of depression before their diagnosis of MS.
Of 3,817 patients with MS onset between 2005 and 2014, 27.4% (n = 1,048) had collected at least one prescription for an SSRI.
“What we found was that MS patients with either an ICD code for depression or having been exposed to SSRIs had a significantly increased risk of reaching EDSS 3.0,” Dr. Binzer reported. The age at which patients reached these milestones were younger in both groups when compared with MS patients without depression, she observed.
“The difference between the groups [MS with and MS without depression] seemed to increased with EDSS,” Dr. Binzer said.
Although not statistically significant, there was a trend for patients with depression to be more likely to convert to secondary progressive MS, with a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.1).
“For a sensitivity analysis, we found that those who had depression prior to their first MS symptom, the median age when they reached EDSS 3.0 and 4.0 was reduced by 3 and 7 years, respectively,” Dr. Binzer said, adding that, unfortunately, there wasn’t enough power to look at the other endpoints.
In regard to bipolar disorder, 1.5% (n = 200) of 13,125 MS patients diagnosed between 1973 and 2014 were identified with this mood disorder. Its presence significantly increased the risk of MS patients reaching an EDSS score of 4.0 by 58% (95% CI, 1.1-2.28), but not EDSS 3.0 (HR = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92) or 6.0 (HR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79-1.69). The latter could be due to smaller sample size, Dr. Binzer suggested.
The investigators’ analysis of the results stratified by sex, conducted because men tend to fare worse than women with MS and progress faster, showed that for both depression and bipolar disorder, men were at significantly higher risk of reaching sustained disability milestones. Indeed, compared with women, men with depression had a 61% increased risk and those with bipolar disorder a 31% increased risk of reaching an EDSS score of 6.0. They also had 51% and 32% increased risks of conversion to secondary progressive MS.
“We don’t know the mechanisms that underlie these associations,” Dr. Binzer noted. “Irrespective of the underlying mechanisms, [the study] clearly shows that it’s imperative that we recognize, early, mood disorders in MS patients, and manage them effectively in order to provide better care and hopefully reduce MS disability worsening.”
The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr. Binzer has received speaker fees and travel grants from Biogen.
SOURCE: Binzer S et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):41. Abstract 99.
BERLIN – Depression and bipolar disorder are major risk factors for worsening disability in people with multiple sclerosis, according to the results of a large Swedish registry-based study.
The presence of depression increased the risk of having a sustained Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3.0 by 54% and 4.0 by 87%, and it doubled the risk of an EDSS of 6.0.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment also upped the risk of greater disability, with patients exposed to SSRIs having a 40% increased risk of a sustained EDSS of 3.0, a 97% chance of having a sustained EDSS of 4.0, and 2.2-fold increased risk of a sustained EDSS of 6.0.
“We know that mood disorders are highly prevalent in people with multiple sclerosis,” Stefanie Binzer, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis. She gave her presentation at the meeting on Oct. 10, which was World Mental Health Day.
The presence of mood disorders is associated with reduced quality of life, said Dr. Binzer of the department of clinical neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. Furthermore, depression is the major risk factor for suicidality in patients with MS. However, before this study the effect of having a comorbid mood disorder on MS patients’ disability levels had not been established.
The investigators analyzed data from 5,875 patients in the Swedish MS registry between 2001 and 2014. By matching these patients to records in the Swedish National Patient Registry and the Swedish National Prescribed Drug Registry, they found that 8.5% (n = 502) had an International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), code for depression. Of these, 261 had received a diagnosis of depression before their diagnosis of MS.
Of 3,817 patients with MS onset between 2005 and 2014, 27.4% (n = 1,048) had collected at least one prescription for an SSRI.
“What we found was that MS patients with either an ICD code for depression or having been exposed to SSRIs had a significantly increased risk of reaching EDSS 3.0,” Dr. Binzer reported. The age at which patients reached these milestones were younger in both groups when compared with MS patients without depression, she observed.
“The difference between the groups [MS with and MS without depression] seemed to increased with EDSS,” Dr. Binzer said.
Although not statistically significant, there was a trend for patients with depression to be more likely to convert to secondary progressive MS, with a hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.1).
“For a sensitivity analysis, we found that those who had depression prior to their first MS symptom, the median age when they reached EDSS 3.0 and 4.0 was reduced by 3 and 7 years, respectively,” Dr. Binzer said, adding that, unfortunately, there wasn’t enough power to look at the other endpoints.
In regard to bipolar disorder, 1.5% (n = 200) of 13,125 MS patients diagnosed between 1973 and 2014 were identified with this mood disorder. Its presence significantly increased the risk of MS patients reaching an EDSS score of 4.0 by 58% (95% CI, 1.1-2.28), but not EDSS 3.0 (HR = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.94-1.92) or 6.0 (HR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79-1.69). The latter could be due to smaller sample size, Dr. Binzer suggested.
The investigators’ analysis of the results stratified by sex, conducted because men tend to fare worse than women with MS and progress faster, showed that for both depression and bipolar disorder, men were at significantly higher risk of reaching sustained disability milestones. Indeed, compared with women, men with depression had a 61% increased risk and those with bipolar disorder a 31% increased risk of reaching an EDSS score of 6.0. They also had 51% and 32% increased risks of conversion to secondary progressive MS.
“We don’t know the mechanisms that underlie these associations,” Dr. Binzer noted. “Irrespective of the underlying mechanisms, [the study] clearly shows that it’s imperative that we recognize, early, mood disorders in MS patients, and manage them effectively in order to provide better care and hopefully reduce MS disability worsening.”
The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr. Binzer has received speaker fees and travel grants from Biogen.
SOURCE: Binzer S et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):41. Abstract 99.
REPORTING FROM ECTRIMS 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Depression and bipolar disorder increased the risk of reaching Expanded Disability Status Scale scores of 3.0, 4.0, and 6.0, particularly in men with MS.
Study details: Swedish registry study of nearly 6,000 individuals with confirmed MS, 8.5% of whom had depression and 1.5% of whom had bipolar disorder.
Disclosures: The research was funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Brain Foundation. Dr. Binzer has received speaker fees and travel grants from Biogen.
Source: Binzer S et al. Mult Scler. 2018;24(Suppl 2):41. Abstract 99.
Guidelines outline patient-centered approach to type 2 diabetes
issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report also addresses clinical inertia and notes that medication adherence and persistence should be facilitated. All patients should be offered ongoing self-management education and support, Melanie J. Davies, MD, one of the two cochairs of the report-writing committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The report also addresses preferred choices for glucose-lowering medications, largely based on recent findings of large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials. There also is specific guidance on how to manage hyperglycemia in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
“The consensus report focuses on not what an individual’s glycemic target should be or how to individualize goals but really addresses how each patient can achieve their individualized glycemic target,” Dr. Davies said.
Dr. Davies, who is professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England) and an honorary consultant diabetologist at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust also said that the report looked at taking patient factors and preferences into account but also considered “the ever-increasing complexity around the availability of glucose-lowering agents.”
Practical guide to managing patients
The consensus report, which was simultaneously published in the official journals of the ADA (Diabetes Care 2018 Sep; dci180033) and the EASD (Diabetologia. 2018 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) to coincide with its presentation at the EASD meeting, is much more visual and aims to be more of a practical aid than was the previous position statement from 2015 (Diabetologia. 2015 Mar;58:429-42; Diabetes Care 2015 Jan;38[1]:140-9), on which it was based, Dr. Davies said.
The patient has been placed firmly at the center of the decision cycle, she observed, which starts with assessment of patient characteristics and consideration of their lifestyle, comorbidities, and clinical parameters. Specific factors that may affect the choice of treatment, such as the individualized glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target or side effect profiles of medications, are included, as is working together with the patient to make, continually monitor, and reevaluate a shared decision plan.
In terms of lifestyle, one of the consensus recommendations is that “an individualized program of medical nutritional therapy should be offered to all patients,” with the more specific recommendation that those who are overweight or obese be advised of the health benefits of weight loss and be encouraged to participate in dietary modifications that may include food substitution. Increasing activity is also highly recommended based on long-established evidence that this can help reduce HbA1c level. Recommendations for when to consider bariatric surgery for weight management also are included.
Clarity on treating comorbidities
Previously discussed in June at the ADA’s annual meeting, the consensus report has undergone fine-tuning and multiple revisions. The report was based on a comprehensive and systematic review of the diabetes literature available from 2014 through February 2018. Overall, more than 6,000 randomized trials, reviews, and meta-analyses were considered and distilled down to a list of around 500 papers that were then thoroughly reviewed by an expert panel.
“I guarantee, there’s never been a paper that’s been more peer reviewed,” said John Buse, MD, PhD, the other cochair of the report’s writing committee. A total of 35 named individuals reviewed and provided more than 800 detailed comments among them, which were considered and reflected in the final version.
Dr. Buse is the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the diabetes center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“There’s much more clarity now,” added Dr. Davies, referring to the changes made to how patients with comorbidities are managed. If somebody does have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, there is now clear direction on which glucose-lowering therapy should be considered first, and what to do if the HbA1c remains above target.
For example, in patients who have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the recommendation is, after metformin, to choose either a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit.
If heart failure or chronic kidney disease coexist, then an SGLT2 inhibitor shown to reduce their progression should be favored, or if contraindicated or not preferred, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit should be given.
The main action, pros and cons of interventions, and the various medications are shown in tables to clearly guide clinicians in the decision-making process, Dr. Buse said.
First-line management
The first line recommended glucose-lowering therapy for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes remains metformin, together with comprehensive lifestyle advice, Dr. Buse observed.
“A huge controversy in the [diabetes] community asks, ‘Is metformin the first-line therapy because it’s cheap and was the first oral agent studied and has a long history?’ or is it something that really is based on medical evidence?” Dr. Buse acknowledged. Although combinations of glucose-lowering drugs have been proposed upfront, “the evidence for that is largely from small studies, in limited numbers of sites, such that, for now, we generally recommend starting on a single-agent medication if lifestyle management is not enough to control glucose.”
If there is a need to intensify treatment as the patient’s HbA1c remains above their individualized target, then other drugs may be added to step up the treatment. The consensus report then looks at which drugs might be best to add, based on the need to avoid hypoglycemia, promote weight loss, and/or if cost or availability is a major issue.
If patients need the greater glucose-lowering effects of an injectable medication, a GLP-1 receptor agonist – not insulin – is recommended, Dr. Buse observed. However, for patients with extreme and symptomatic hyperglycemia, insulin is then recommended.
There also is guidance on when to consider oral therapies in conjunction with injectable therapies, with the consensus recommendation stating: Patients who are unable to maintain glycemic targets on basal insulin in combination with oral medication can have treatment intensified with GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, or prandial insulin.
The ADA perspective
William T. Cefalu, MD, chief scientific, medical and mission officer of the ADA observed that the “ADA fully endorses the ADA/EASD Consensus Report” and had already added a statement on the recommendations into its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2018 as part of the organization’s Living Standards Update. This was a change made last year to allow real-time updates of practice recommendations based on new and evolving evidence released in between the annual process of updating the Society’s Standards.
“Much, if not all, of these recommendations from this paper will be incorporated into our Standards,” said Dr. Cefalu. “We applaud the authors of the consensus paper; we think this was an outstanding group, and we really feel that this is a paradigm change in diabetes management,” he added. “Instead of relying on the [HbA1c] number in an algorithm, this puts the patient at the center; patient-related factors, patient preferences, adherence, compliance, and more importantly, the underlying disease state … this really is a comprehensive approach to management.”
The stratification of patients by cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, or heart failure is a particularly noteworthy, as is the advice on which agent to choose if weight management is an issue. Finally, there are the considerations of costs of therapy, and what to do if there is the risk of hypoglycemia. “The consensus recommendations and approach to glycemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes presented within the report reflects the current view of the ADA,” Dr. Cefalu confirmed.
The EASD perspective
“The EASD was again delighted to go into cooperation with our colleagues and friends at the ADA because is it is so important to bring out a consensus on where we need to go in this forest of glucose-lowering therapies,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, vice-president of the EASD.
“The fact that this consensus paper puts the patient front and center, and makes that an integral part of glucose-lowering therapy, and also that lifestyle is being accentuated again, together with education in every patient is crucial,” Dr. Mathieu, who is professor of medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and a coauthor of the report, added.
“At EASD, we also believe that it is very important to bring this consensus paper to life,” she added, which is part of her role as the chair of postgraduate education at the EASD. Two of the EASD’s main remits is to ensure that the results of research and education are brought to the diabetes community at large, she said.
In every figure in the paper there is a highlight to say, “please avoid clinical inertia, reassess and modify treatment if necessary, at least every 3-6 months,” Dr. Mathieu noted during the EASD congress.
David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and president-elect of the EASD, commented on the 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report after its presentation at the EASD meeting. “The reality is that you’ve got to think extremely hard with your patients about what the balances between risks and benefits are,” Dr. Matthews said. “We encourage you to do this, what you have here is a wonderful handbook to guide you in your decision making.”
Dr. Davies reported receiving personal fees and/or grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Intarcia Therapeutics/Servier, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda.
Dr. Buse disclosed acting as a consultant to and/or receiving research support from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, MannKind, NovaTarg, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and vTv Therapeutics with fees paid to the University of North Carolina. He holds stock options in Mellitus Health, PhaseBio and Stability Health.
Dr. Mathieu disclosed relationships with (advisory boards, speakers bureaus, and/or research support) from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Intrexon, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MannKind, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and UCB.
Dr. Cefalu had no disclosures and Dr. Matthews had no relevant conflicts of interest other than becoming the EASD president-elect during the meeting.
issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report also addresses clinical inertia and notes that medication adherence and persistence should be facilitated. All patients should be offered ongoing self-management education and support, Melanie J. Davies, MD, one of the two cochairs of the report-writing committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The report also addresses preferred choices for glucose-lowering medications, largely based on recent findings of large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials. There also is specific guidance on how to manage hyperglycemia in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
“The consensus report focuses on not what an individual’s glycemic target should be or how to individualize goals but really addresses how each patient can achieve their individualized glycemic target,” Dr. Davies said.
Dr. Davies, who is professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England) and an honorary consultant diabetologist at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust also said that the report looked at taking patient factors and preferences into account but also considered “the ever-increasing complexity around the availability of glucose-lowering agents.”
Practical guide to managing patients
The consensus report, which was simultaneously published in the official journals of the ADA (Diabetes Care 2018 Sep; dci180033) and the EASD (Diabetologia. 2018 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) to coincide with its presentation at the EASD meeting, is much more visual and aims to be more of a practical aid than was the previous position statement from 2015 (Diabetologia. 2015 Mar;58:429-42; Diabetes Care 2015 Jan;38[1]:140-9), on which it was based, Dr. Davies said.
The patient has been placed firmly at the center of the decision cycle, she observed, which starts with assessment of patient characteristics and consideration of their lifestyle, comorbidities, and clinical parameters. Specific factors that may affect the choice of treatment, such as the individualized glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target or side effect profiles of medications, are included, as is working together with the patient to make, continually monitor, and reevaluate a shared decision plan.
In terms of lifestyle, one of the consensus recommendations is that “an individualized program of medical nutritional therapy should be offered to all patients,” with the more specific recommendation that those who are overweight or obese be advised of the health benefits of weight loss and be encouraged to participate in dietary modifications that may include food substitution. Increasing activity is also highly recommended based on long-established evidence that this can help reduce HbA1c level. Recommendations for when to consider bariatric surgery for weight management also are included.
Clarity on treating comorbidities
Previously discussed in June at the ADA’s annual meeting, the consensus report has undergone fine-tuning and multiple revisions. The report was based on a comprehensive and systematic review of the diabetes literature available from 2014 through February 2018. Overall, more than 6,000 randomized trials, reviews, and meta-analyses were considered and distilled down to a list of around 500 papers that were then thoroughly reviewed by an expert panel.
“I guarantee, there’s never been a paper that’s been more peer reviewed,” said John Buse, MD, PhD, the other cochair of the report’s writing committee. A total of 35 named individuals reviewed and provided more than 800 detailed comments among them, which were considered and reflected in the final version.
Dr. Buse is the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the diabetes center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“There’s much more clarity now,” added Dr. Davies, referring to the changes made to how patients with comorbidities are managed. If somebody does have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, there is now clear direction on which glucose-lowering therapy should be considered first, and what to do if the HbA1c remains above target.
For example, in patients who have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the recommendation is, after metformin, to choose either a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit.
If heart failure or chronic kidney disease coexist, then an SGLT2 inhibitor shown to reduce their progression should be favored, or if contraindicated or not preferred, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit should be given.
The main action, pros and cons of interventions, and the various medications are shown in tables to clearly guide clinicians in the decision-making process, Dr. Buse said.
First-line management
The first line recommended glucose-lowering therapy for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes remains metformin, together with comprehensive lifestyle advice, Dr. Buse observed.
“A huge controversy in the [diabetes] community asks, ‘Is metformin the first-line therapy because it’s cheap and was the first oral agent studied and has a long history?’ or is it something that really is based on medical evidence?” Dr. Buse acknowledged. Although combinations of glucose-lowering drugs have been proposed upfront, “the evidence for that is largely from small studies, in limited numbers of sites, such that, for now, we generally recommend starting on a single-agent medication if lifestyle management is not enough to control glucose.”
If there is a need to intensify treatment as the patient’s HbA1c remains above their individualized target, then other drugs may be added to step up the treatment. The consensus report then looks at which drugs might be best to add, based on the need to avoid hypoglycemia, promote weight loss, and/or if cost or availability is a major issue.
If patients need the greater glucose-lowering effects of an injectable medication, a GLP-1 receptor agonist – not insulin – is recommended, Dr. Buse observed. However, for patients with extreme and symptomatic hyperglycemia, insulin is then recommended.
There also is guidance on when to consider oral therapies in conjunction with injectable therapies, with the consensus recommendation stating: Patients who are unable to maintain glycemic targets on basal insulin in combination with oral medication can have treatment intensified with GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, or prandial insulin.
The ADA perspective
William T. Cefalu, MD, chief scientific, medical and mission officer of the ADA observed that the “ADA fully endorses the ADA/EASD Consensus Report” and had already added a statement on the recommendations into its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2018 as part of the organization’s Living Standards Update. This was a change made last year to allow real-time updates of practice recommendations based on new and evolving evidence released in between the annual process of updating the Society’s Standards.
“Much, if not all, of these recommendations from this paper will be incorporated into our Standards,” said Dr. Cefalu. “We applaud the authors of the consensus paper; we think this was an outstanding group, and we really feel that this is a paradigm change in diabetes management,” he added. “Instead of relying on the [HbA1c] number in an algorithm, this puts the patient at the center; patient-related factors, patient preferences, adherence, compliance, and more importantly, the underlying disease state … this really is a comprehensive approach to management.”
The stratification of patients by cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, or heart failure is a particularly noteworthy, as is the advice on which agent to choose if weight management is an issue. Finally, there are the considerations of costs of therapy, and what to do if there is the risk of hypoglycemia. “The consensus recommendations and approach to glycemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes presented within the report reflects the current view of the ADA,” Dr. Cefalu confirmed.
The EASD perspective
“The EASD was again delighted to go into cooperation with our colleagues and friends at the ADA because is it is so important to bring out a consensus on where we need to go in this forest of glucose-lowering therapies,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, vice-president of the EASD.
“The fact that this consensus paper puts the patient front and center, and makes that an integral part of glucose-lowering therapy, and also that lifestyle is being accentuated again, together with education in every patient is crucial,” Dr. Mathieu, who is professor of medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and a coauthor of the report, added.
“At EASD, we also believe that it is very important to bring this consensus paper to life,” she added, which is part of her role as the chair of postgraduate education at the EASD. Two of the EASD’s main remits is to ensure that the results of research and education are brought to the diabetes community at large, she said.
In every figure in the paper there is a highlight to say, “please avoid clinical inertia, reassess and modify treatment if necessary, at least every 3-6 months,” Dr. Mathieu noted during the EASD congress.
David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and president-elect of the EASD, commented on the 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report after its presentation at the EASD meeting. “The reality is that you’ve got to think extremely hard with your patients about what the balances between risks and benefits are,” Dr. Matthews said. “We encourage you to do this, what you have here is a wonderful handbook to guide you in your decision making.”
Dr. Davies reported receiving personal fees and/or grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Intarcia Therapeutics/Servier, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda.
Dr. Buse disclosed acting as a consultant to and/or receiving research support from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, MannKind, NovaTarg, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and vTv Therapeutics with fees paid to the University of North Carolina. He holds stock options in Mellitus Health, PhaseBio and Stability Health.
Dr. Mathieu disclosed relationships with (advisory boards, speakers bureaus, and/or research support) from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Intrexon, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MannKind, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and UCB.
Dr. Cefalu had no disclosures and Dr. Matthews had no relevant conflicts of interest other than becoming the EASD president-elect during the meeting.
issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report also addresses clinical inertia and notes that medication adherence and persistence should be facilitated. All patients should be offered ongoing self-management education and support, Melanie J. Davies, MD, one of the two cochairs of the report-writing committee, said during a press conference at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The report also addresses preferred choices for glucose-lowering medications, largely based on recent findings of large-scale cardiovascular outcomes trials. There also is specific guidance on how to manage hyperglycemia in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure.
“The consensus report focuses on not what an individual’s glycemic target should be or how to individualize goals but really addresses how each patient can achieve their individualized glycemic target,” Dr. Davies said.
Dr. Davies, who is professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Leicester (England) and an honorary consultant diabetologist at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust also said that the report looked at taking patient factors and preferences into account but also considered “the ever-increasing complexity around the availability of glucose-lowering agents.”
Practical guide to managing patients
The consensus report, which was simultaneously published in the official journals of the ADA (Diabetes Care 2018 Sep; dci180033) and the EASD (Diabetologia. 2018 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) to coincide with its presentation at the EASD meeting, is much more visual and aims to be more of a practical aid than was the previous position statement from 2015 (Diabetologia. 2015 Mar;58:429-42; Diabetes Care 2015 Jan;38[1]:140-9), on which it was based, Dr. Davies said.
The patient has been placed firmly at the center of the decision cycle, she observed, which starts with assessment of patient characteristics and consideration of their lifestyle, comorbidities, and clinical parameters. Specific factors that may affect the choice of treatment, such as the individualized glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target or side effect profiles of medications, are included, as is working together with the patient to make, continually monitor, and reevaluate a shared decision plan.
In terms of lifestyle, one of the consensus recommendations is that “an individualized program of medical nutritional therapy should be offered to all patients,” with the more specific recommendation that those who are overweight or obese be advised of the health benefits of weight loss and be encouraged to participate in dietary modifications that may include food substitution. Increasing activity is also highly recommended based on long-established evidence that this can help reduce HbA1c level. Recommendations for when to consider bariatric surgery for weight management also are included.
Clarity on treating comorbidities
Previously discussed in June at the ADA’s annual meeting, the consensus report has undergone fine-tuning and multiple revisions. The report was based on a comprehensive and systematic review of the diabetes literature available from 2014 through February 2018. Overall, more than 6,000 randomized trials, reviews, and meta-analyses were considered and distilled down to a list of around 500 papers that were then thoroughly reviewed by an expert panel.
“I guarantee, there’s never been a paper that’s been more peer reviewed,” said John Buse, MD, PhD, the other cochair of the report’s writing committee. A total of 35 named individuals reviewed and provided more than 800 detailed comments among them, which were considered and reflected in the final version.
Dr. Buse is the Verne S. Caviness Distinguished Professor, chief of the division of endocrinology, and director of the diabetes center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“There’s much more clarity now,” added Dr. Davies, referring to the changes made to how patients with comorbidities are managed. If somebody does have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, there is now clear direction on which glucose-lowering therapy should be considered first, and what to do if the HbA1c remains above target.
For example, in patients who have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the recommendation is, after metformin, to choose either a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with proven cardiovascular benefit.
If heart failure or chronic kidney disease coexist, then an SGLT2 inhibitor shown to reduce their progression should be favored, or if contraindicated or not preferred, a GLP-1 receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit should be given.
The main action, pros and cons of interventions, and the various medications are shown in tables to clearly guide clinicians in the decision-making process, Dr. Buse said.
First-line management
The first line recommended glucose-lowering therapy for hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes remains metformin, together with comprehensive lifestyle advice, Dr. Buse observed.
“A huge controversy in the [diabetes] community asks, ‘Is metformin the first-line therapy because it’s cheap and was the first oral agent studied and has a long history?’ or is it something that really is based on medical evidence?” Dr. Buse acknowledged. Although combinations of glucose-lowering drugs have been proposed upfront, “the evidence for that is largely from small studies, in limited numbers of sites, such that, for now, we generally recommend starting on a single-agent medication if lifestyle management is not enough to control glucose.”
If there is a need to intensify treatment as the patient’s HbA1c remains above their individualized target, then other drugs may be added to step up the treatment. The consensus report then looks at which drugs might be best to add, based on the need to avoid hypoglycemia, promote weight loss, and/or if cost or availability is a major issue.
If patients need the greater glucose-lowering effects of an injectable medication, a GLP-1 receptor agonist – not insulin – is recommended, Dr. Buse observed. However, for patients with extreme and symptomatic hyperglycemia, insulin is then recommended.
There also is guidance on when to consider oral therapies in conjunction with injectable therapies, with the consensus recommendation stating: Patients who are unable to maintain glycemic targets on basal insulin in combination with oral medication can have treatment intensified with GLP-1 receptor agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors, or prandial insulin.
The ADA perspective
William T. Cefalu, MD, chief scientific, medical and mission officer of the ADA observed that the “ADA fully endorses the ADA/EASD Consensus Report” and had already added a statement on the recommendations into its Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes – 2018 as part of the organization’s Living Standards Update. This was a change made last year to allow real-time updates of practice recommendations based on new and evolving evidence released in between the annual process of updating the Society’s Standards.
“Much, if not all, of these recommendations from this paper will be incorporated into our Standards,” said Dr. Cefalu. “We applaud the authors of the consensus paper; we think this was an outstanding group, and we really feel that this is a paradigm change in diabetes management,” he added. “Instead of relying on the [HbA1c] number in an algorithm, this puts the patient at the center; patient-related factors, patient preferences, adherence, compliance, and more importantly, the underlying disease state … this really is a comprehensive approach to management.”
The stratification of patients by cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, or heart failure is a particularly noteworthy, as is the advice on which agent to choose if weight management is an issue. Finally, there are the considerations of costs of therapy, and what to do if there is the risk of hypoglycemia. “The consensus recommendations and approach to glycemic management in adults with type 2 diabetes presented within the report reflects the current view of the ADA,” Dr. Cefalu confirmed.
The EASD perspective
“The EASD was again delighted to go into cooperation with our colleagues and friends at the ADA because is it is so important to bring out a consensus on where we need to go in this forest of glucose-lowering therapies,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD, vice-president of the EASD.
“The fact that this consensus paper puts the patient front and center, and makes that an integral part of glucose-lowering therapy, and also that lifestyle is being accentuated again, together with education in every patient is crucial,” Dr. Mathieu, who is professor of medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium), and a coauthor of the report, added.
“At EASD, we also believe that it is very important to bring this consensus paper to life,” she added, which is part of her role as the chair of postgraduate education at the EASD. Two of the EASD’s main remits is to ensure that the results of research and education are brought to the diabetes community at large, she said.
In every figure in the paper there is a highlight to say, “please avoid clinical inertia, reassess and modify treatment if necessary, at least every 3-6 months,” Dr. Mathieu noted during the EASD congress.
David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England) and president-elect of the EASD, commented on the 2018 ADA/EASD Consensus Report after its presentation at the EASD meeting. “The reality is that you’ve got to think extremely hard with your patients about what the balances between risks and benefits are,” Dr. Matthews said. “We encourage you to do this, what you have here is a wonderful handbook to guide you in your decision making.”
Dr. Davies reported receiving personal fees and/or grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Intarcia Therapeutics/Servier, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Takeda.
Dr. Buse disclosed acting as a consultant to and/or receiving research support from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, MannKind, NovaTarg, Neurimmune, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and vTv Therapeutics with fees paid to the University of North Carolina. He holds stock options in Mellitus Health, PhaseBio and Stability Health.
Dr. Mathieu disclosed relationships with (advisory boards, speakers bureaus, and/or research support) from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Hanmi Pharmaceuticals, Intrexon, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MannKind, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and UCB.
Dr. Cefalu had no disclosures and Dr. Matthews had no relevant conflicts of interest other than becoming the EASD president-elect during the meeting.
REPORTING FROM EASD 2018
‘Twincreatin’ produces ‘impressive’ HbA1c, weight control in T2DM
BERLIN – Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieved “impressive” drops in glycated hemoglobin, or HbA1c, of up to 2.4% and in body weight of up to 11.3 kg with the investigational drug LY3298176 in a phase 2b trial.
The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c at 26 weeks, which showed significant reductions from baseline of 1.6%, 2%, and 2.4% for the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses, respectively, of the drug tested. By comparison, a drop of just 1.1% was seen for dulaglutide, and 0.1% for placebo.
The higher doses of LY3298176, which is a dual agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor, used in the trial helped up to 90% of patients achieve an HbA1c of 7% or less, 82% of patients to achieve an HbA1c of 6.5% or less, and up to 30% of patients to achieve an HbA1c of less than 5.7%, a range which is considered normal for people without diabetes.
As for weight loss, the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses of LY3298176 helped patients achieve significant –4.8-kg, –8.7-kg, and –11.3-kg changes from baseline, respectively. These were greater than those seen with dulaglutide (–2.7 kg) and placebo (–0.4 kg).
More than one third of patients treated with the novel drug achieved at least a 10% or more change in their starting body weight, with a quarter of patients on the 15-mg dose achieving a 15% or more change in bodyweight.
“These are very, very impressive data both from an A1c-lowering perspective and also from a weight reduction perspective,” said the study’s principal investigator Juan Frias, MD, at a press briefing held at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).
GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy is a recommended treatment for T2DM because it addresses many of the important pathophysiologic problems, from blood glucose control and weight loss to reducing cardiovascular risk, Dr. Frias observed.
He added that the first GLP-1 receptor agonists became available in the United States in 2005. Their use in T2DM has recently been further endorsed in a consensus report (Diabetes Care. 2018 Sep. doi: rg/10.2337/dci18-0033; Diabetologia. 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the EASD.
“Despite the potency of these agents, many of our patients are not achieving adequate glycemic or weight control, so we could always use new agents that are more potent as long as they’re safe for the patient,” said Dr. Frias, who is a clinical endocrinologist and the chief executive officer at the National Research Institute in Los Angeles
LY3298176 is a novel unimolecular, multifunctional peptide that is being developed by Eli Lilly as a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of T2DM. It consists of 39 amino acids linked to a C20 fatty–diacid moiety and has a mean half-life of around 5 days, which means it can be dosed weekly, Dr. Frias observed.
The effect of targeting both GIP and the GLP-1 receptor simultaneously is possibly both additive and complementary, Dr. Frias suggested. Additive effects may include a decrease in food intake and an increase in insulin secretion, with opposing effects on glucagon secretion, with the additional effects of increased glucose uptake with GIP and delayed gastric emptying with GLP-1 receptor agonism.
“When you think back on what the history, biology, and discovery of these compounds was, it isn’t at all obvious you’d pair these two [to make] a so-called ‘twincreatin’ – there is so much overlap,” said Matthias Tschöp, MD, who was invited to discuss the findings after the presentation at the EASD meeting.
Dr. Tschöp, who is the head of the division of neuroendocrinology at the Institute for Diabetes and Obesity at Helmholtz Zentrum München in Neuherberg , Germany, noted that it’s an interesting combination, but it’s not the only approach being tested – there are other twincretin combinations. GIP on its own doesn’t seem to do much, but it must be the combination that is important, it was suggested during discussion.
A total of 318 patients with T2DM and a starting HbA1c of 7%-10.5% were studied and randomized equally to one of six weekly treatment groups: LY3298176 at doses of either 1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, given subcutaneously; 1.5 mg of dulaglutide; or a placebo injection.
The two highest doses of LY3298176 were titrated rather quickly, Dr. Frias said, and this is important when it comes to the side effect profile. In a subsequent study, the dose titration schedule was amended to prolong the titration period to try to avoid some of the side effects seen, according to Dr. Frias.
Adverse events predominantly affected the gastrointestinal system, with any grade nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea seen in a respective 20%-40%, 7%-26%, and 24%-32% of patients taking the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses. Corresponding rates in dulaglutide-treated patients were, approximately, 30%, 9%, and 17%.
“The safety profile of the dual agonist is really similar to that which you see with selective GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Dr. Frias observed. “The most common adverse events were seen at the higher doses and pertained to GI tolerability, but the majority of these events were mild to moderate and dissipated with time and [could] be reduced significantly by appropriate titration.”
Dr. Frias said: “This novel dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist certainly has the potential to be become a very promising treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes.”
He added: “In my experience as an investigator, as a clinician, I’ve never really seen this magnitude of A1c reduction in this percentage of patients and also with this level of weight loss as well, certainly greater than with a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist.”
Further long-term studies are needed, and the phase 3 program in T2DM will be called SURPASS, according to a press statement issued by Eli Lilly. The phase 3 studies are expected to begin “no later than early 2019,” the statement said, and be completed in late 2021. The drug company also noted that it is “evaluating next steps in the study of GIP/GLP-1 RA for obesity and other conditions.”
SOURCE: Frias JP et al. EASD 2018, Session S31; Frias JP et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32260-8.
BERLIN – Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieved “impressive” drops in glycated hemoglobin, or HbA1c, of up to 2.4% and in body weight of up to 11.3 kg with the investigational drug LY3298176 in a phase 2b trial.
The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c at 26 weeks, which showed significant reductions from baseline of 1.6%, 2%, and 2.4% for the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses, respectively, of the drug tested. By comparison, a drop of just 1.1% was seen for dulaglutide, and 0.1% for placebo.
The higher doses of LY3298176, which is a dual agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor, used in the trial helped up to 90% of patients achieve an HbA1c of 7% or less, 82% of patients to achieve an HbA1c of 6.5% or less, and up to 30% of patients to achieve an HbA1c of less than 5.7%, a range which is considered normal for people without diabetes.
As for weight loss, the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses of LY3298176 helped patients achieve significant –4.8-kg, –8.7-kg, and –11.3-kg changes from baseline, respectively. These were greater than those seen with dulaglutide (–2.7 kg) and placebo (–0.4 kg).
More than one third of patients treated with the novel drug achieved at least a 10% or more change in their starting body weight, with a quarter of patients on the 15-mg dose achieving a 15% or more change in bodyweight.
“These are very, very impressive data both from an A1c-lowering perspective and also from a weight reduction perspective,” said the study’s principal investigator Juan Frias, MD, at a press briefing held at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).
GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy is a recommended treatment for T2DM because it addresses many of the important pathophysiologic problems, from blood glucose control and weight loss to reducing cardiovascular risk, Dr. Frias observed.
He added that the first GLP-1 receptor agonists became available in the United States in 2005. Their use in T2DM has recently been further endorsed in a consensus report (Diabetes Care. 2018 Sep. doi: rg/10.2337/dci18-0033; Diabetologia. 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the EASD.
“Despite the potency of these agents, many of our patients are not achieving adequate glycemic or weight control, so we could always use new agents that are more potent as long as they’re safe for the patient,” said Dr. Frias, who is a clinical endocrinologist and the chief executive officer at the National Research Institute in Los Angeles
LY3298176 is a novel unimolecular, multifunctional peptide that is being developed by Eli Lilly as a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of T2DM. It consists of 39 amino acids linked to a C20 fatty–diacid moiety and has a mean half-life of around 5 days, which means it can be dosed weekly, Dr. Frias observed.
The effect of targeting both GIP and the GLP-1 receptor simultaneously is possibly both additive and complementary, Dr. Frias suggested. Additive effects may include a decrease in food intake and an increase in insulin secretion, with opposing effects on glucagon secretion, with the additional effects of increased glucose uptake with GIP and delayed gastric emptying with GLP-1 receptor agonism.
“When you think back on what the history, biology, and discovery of these compounds was, it isn’t at all obvious you’d pair these two [to make] a so-called ‘twincreatin’ – there is so much overlap,” said Matthias Tschöp, MD, who was invited to discuss the findings after the presentation at the EASD meeting.
Dr. Tschöp, who is the head of the division of neuroendocrinology at the Institute for Diabetes and Obesity at Helmholtz Zentrum München in Neuherberg , Germany, noted that it’s an interesting combination, but it’s not the only approach being tested – there are other twincretin combinations. GIP on its own doesn’t seem to do much, but it must be the combination that is important, it was suggested during discussion.
A total of 318 patients with T2DM and a starting HbA1c of 7%-10.5% were studied and randomized equally to one of six weekly treatment groups: LY3298176 at doses of either 1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, given subcutaneously; 1.5 mg of dulaglutide; or a placebo injection.
The two highest doses of LY3298176 were titrated rather quickly, Dr. Frias said, and this is important when it comes to the side effect profile. In a subsequent study, the dose titration schedule was amended to prolong the titration period to try to avoid some of the side effects seen, according to Dr. Frias.
Adverse events predominantly affected the gastrointestinal system, with any grade nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea seen in a respective 20%-40%, 7%-26%, and 24%-32% of patients taking the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses. Corresponding rates in dulaglutide-treated patients were, approximately, 30%, 9%, and 17%.
“The safety profile of the dual agonist is really similar to that which you see with selective GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Dr. Frias observed. “The most common adverse events were seen at the higher doses and pertained to GI tolerability, but the majority of these events were mild to moderate and dissipated with time and [could] be reduced significantly by appropriate titration.”
Dr. Frias said: “This novel dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist certainly has the potential to be become a very promising treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes.”
He added: “In my experience as an investigator, as a clinician, I’ve never really seen this magnitude of A1c reduction in this percentage of patients and also with this level of weight loss as well, certainly greater than with a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist.”
Further long-term studies are needed, and the phase 3 program in T2DM will be called SURPASS, according to a press statement issued by Eli Lilly. The phase 3 studies are expected to begin “no later than early 2019,” the statement said, and be completed in late 2021. The drug company also noted that it is “evaluating next steps in the study of GIP/GLP-1 RA for obesity and other conditions.”
SOURCE: Frias JP et al. EASD 2018, Session S31; Frias JP et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32260-8.
BERLIN – Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieved “impressive” drops in glycated hemoglobin, or HbA1c, of up to 2.4% and in body weight of up to 11.3 kg with the investigational drug LY3298176 in a phase 2b trial.
The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c at 26 weeks, which showed significant reductions from baseline of 1.6%, 2%, and 2.4% for the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses, respectively, of the drug tested. By comparison, a drop of just 1.1% was seen for dulaglutide, and 0.1% for placebo.
The higher doses of LY3298176, which is a dual agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor, used in the trial helped up to 90% of patients achieve an HbA1c of 7% or less, 82% of patients to achieve an HbA1c of 6.5% or less, and up to 30% of patients to achieve an HbA1c of less than 5.7%, a range which is considered normal for people without diabetes.
As for weight loss, the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses of LY3298176 helped patients achieve significant –4.8-kg, –8.7-kg, and –11.3-kg changes from baseline, respectively. These were greater than those seen with dulaglutide (–2.7 kg) and placebo (–0.4 kg).
More than one third of patients treated with the novel drug achieved at least a 10% or more change in their starting body weight, with a quarter of patients on the 15-mg dose achieving a 15% or more change in bodyweight.
“These are very, very impressive data both from an A1c-lowering perspective and also from a weight reduction perspective,” said the study’s principal investigator Juan Frias, MD, at a press briefing held at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).
GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy is a recommended treatment for T2DM because it addresses many of the important pathophysiologic problems, from blood glucose control and weight loss to reducing cardiovascular risk, Dr. Frias observed.
He added that the first GLP-1 receptor agonists became available in the United States in 2005. Their use in T2DM has recently been further endorsed in a consensus report (Diabetes Care. 2018 Sep. doi: rg/10.2337/dci18-0033; Diabetologia. 2018. doi: 10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5) issued jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the EASD.
“Despite the potency of these agents, many of our patients are not achieving adequate glycemic or weight control, so we could always use new agents that are more potent as long as they’re safe for the patient,” said Dr. Frias, who is a clinical endocrinologist and the chief executive officer at the National Research Institute in Los Angeles
LY3298176 is a novel unimolecular, multifunctional peptide that is being developed by Eli Lilly as a dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of T2DM. It consists of 39 amino acids linked to a C20 fatty–diacid moiety and has a mean half-life of around 5 days, which means it can be dosed weekly, Dr. Frias observed.
The effect of targeting both GIP and the GLP-1 receptor simultaneously is possibly both additive and complementary, Dr. Frias suggested. Additive effects may include a decrease in food intake and an increase in insulin secretion, with opposing effects on glucagon secretion, with the additional effects of increased glucose uptake with GIP and delayed gastric emptying with GLP-1 receptor agonism.
“When you think back on what the history, biology, and discovery of these compounds was, it isn’t at all obvious you’d pair these two [to make] a so-called ‘twincreatin’ – there is so much overlap,” said Matthias Tschöp, MD, who was invited to discuss the findings after the presentation at the EASD meeting.
Dr. Tschöp, who is the head of the division of neuroendocrinology at the Institute for Diabetes and Obesity at Helmholtz Zentrum München in Neuherberg , Germany, noted that it’s an interesting combination, but it’s not the only approach being tested – there are other twincretin combinations. GIP on its own doesn’t seem to do much, but it must be the combination that is important, it was suggested during discussion.
A total of 318 patients with T2DM and a starting HbA1c of 7%-10.5% were studied and randomized equally to one of six weekly treatment groups: LY3298176 at doses of either 1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg, given subcutaneously; 1.5 mg of dulaglutide; or a placebo injection.
The two highest doses of LY3298176 were titrated rather quickly, Dr. Frias said, and this is important when it comes to the side effect profile. In a subsequent study, the dose titration schedule was amended to prolong the titration period to try to avoid some of the side effects seen, according to Dr. Frias.
Adverse events predominantly affected the gastrointestinal system, with any grade nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea seen in a respective 20%-40%, 7%-26%, and 24%-32% of patients taking the 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg doses. Corresponding rates in dulaglutide-treated patients were, approximately, 30%, 9%, and 17%.
“The safety profile of the dual agonist is really similar to that which you see with selective GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Dr. Frias observed. “The most common adverse events were seen at the higher doses and pertained to GI tolerability, but the majority of these events were mild to moderate and dissipated with time and [could] be reduced significantly by appropriate titration.”
Dr. Frias said: “This novel dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist certainly has the potential to be become a very promising treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes.”
He added: “In my experience as an investigator, as a clinician, I’ve never really seen this magnitude of A1c reduction in this percentage of patients and also with this level of weight loss as well, certainly greater than with a selective GLP-1 receptor agonist.”
Further long-term studies are needed, and the phase 3 program in T2DM will be called SURPASS, according to a press statement issued by Eli Lilly. The phase 3 studies are expected to begin “no later than early 2019,” the statement said, and be completed in late 2021. The drug company also noted that it is “evaluating next steps in the study of GIP/GLP-1 RA for obesity and other conditions.”
SOURCE: Frias JP et al. EASD 2018, Session S31; Frias JP et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32260-8.
REPORTING FROM EASD 2018
Key clinical point: The investigational dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist LY3298176 could prove to be a promising treatment for T2DM.
Major finding: HbA1c fell by up to 2.4%, and body weight reduced by up to 11.3 kg depending on the dose tested.
Study details: A 26-week, phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 318 subjects with T2DM and a starting HbA1c of 7%-10.5%.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly. The presenting author Dr. Frias declared receiving research support and consulting honorarium from the company, as well as from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. The commentator Dr. Tschöp disclosed being a scientific advisory board member of ERX Pharmaceuticals.
Sources: Frias JP et al. EASD 2018, Session S31; Frias JP et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32260-8.
Gastric banding, metformin “equal” for slowing early T2DM progression
BERLIN – Gastric banding surgery and metformin produce similar improvements in insulin sensitivity and parameters indicative of preserved beta-cell function in patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to the results of a study conducted by the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) Consortium.
“Both interventions resulted in about 50% improvements in insulin sensitivity at 1 year, which was attenuated at 2 years,” reported study investigator Thomas Buchanan, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“The beta-cell responses fell in a pattern that maintained relatively, but not perfectly, stable compensation for insulin resistance,” he added.
Although glucose levels improved “only slightly,” he said, “acute compensation to glucose improved significantly with gastric banding and beta-cell compensation at maximal stimulation fell significantly with metformin.”
Results of the BetaFat (Beta Cell Restoration through Fat Mitigation) study, which are now published online in Diabetes Care, also showed that greater weight loss could be achieved with surgery versus metformin, with a 8.9 kg difference between the groups at 2 years (10.6 vs. 1.7 kg, respectively, P less than .01).
HDL cholesterol levels also rose with both interventions, and gastric banding resulted in a greater effect on very low–density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as serum ALT, Dr. Buchanan said.
The BetaFat study is one of three “proof-of principle” studies currently being conducted by the RISE Consortium in patients with IGT, sometimes called prediabetes, and T2DM, explained Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, the chair for the RISE studies.
The other two multicenter, randomized trials being conducted by the RISE Consortium are looking at the effects of medications on preserving beta-cell function in pediatric/adolescent (10-19 years) and adult (21-65 years) populations with IGT or mild, recently diagnosed T2DM. The design, and some results, of these trials can be viewed on a dedicated section of the Diabetes Care website.
Beta-cell function is being assessed using “state-of-the-art” methods; the coprimary endpoint of the surgery versus metformin study was the steady state C-peptide level and acute C-peptide response at maximal glycemia measured using a hyperglycemic “clamp.”
The goal of the RISE studies is to test different approaches to preserve beta-cell function. It is designed to answer the question of which is more effective in this setting: sustained weight loss through gastric banding such as in the BetaFat study or medication.
Patients were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were aged 21-65 years, had a body mass index of 30-40 kg/m2, and had IGT or a diagnosis of T2DM within the past year for which they had received no diabetes medication at recruitment.
A total of 88 individuals were randomized with exactly half undergoing gastric banding. This consisted of a gastric band placed laparoscopically and adjusted every 2 months for the first year, and then every 3 months for the following year depending on symptoms and weight change.
Normoglycemia was observed in none of the study subjects at baseline but in 22% and 15% of those who had gastric banding or metformin, respectively, at 2 years (P = .66).
As for tolerability, five patients who underwent gastric banding experienced serious adverse events, of which two were caused by band slippage and three were caused other reasons. In the metformin arm, there were two serious adverse events, both unrelated to the medication.
“Gastric banding and metformin offered approximately equal approaches for improving insulin sensitivity in adults with mild to moderate obesity and impaired glucose tolerance or early, mild type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Buchanan concluded. “The predominant beta-cell response was a reduction in secretion to maintain a relatively constant compensation for insulin resistance, with only a small improvement in glucose. Whether these interventions will have different effects on beta-cell function over the long-term remains to be determined.”
Commenting on the study, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University (England), noted that the changes in the lipid and liver parameters were important. Fasting plasma triglyceride levels fell from 1.3 mmol/L at baseline to 1.1 mmol/L at 2 years with surgery but stayed more or less the same with metformin (1.23 mmol/L and 1.28 mmol/L; P less than .009 comparing surgery and metformin groups at 2 years). Change in ALT levels were also significant comparing baseline values with results at 2 years, decreasing in the surgical group to a greater extent than in the metformin groups.
“There’s a really important message here, the predictors of a better response to the weight loss [i.e. changes in triglycerides and liver enzymes] are all there,” Dr. Taylor observed. “RISE has looked at 2 years of this effect, but the conversion to type 2 diabetes is probably going to happen over a longer time course.”
He added that “although the primary outcome measure of change in insulin secretion was not achieved, the writing is on the wall. These people, provided they maintain their weight loss, are likely to succeed. We see all the hallmarks of a successful outcome for the weight loss group – remove the primary driver for type 2 diabetes, and that group is on track.”
The RISE Consortium conducted the BetaFat study. The RISE Consortium is supported by grants from the National Institutes for Health. Further support came from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, the American Diabetes Association, and Allergan. Additional donations of supplies were provided by Allergan, Apollo Endosurgery, Abbott, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buchanan reported receiving research funding from Allergan and Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Taylor had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Buchanan T et al. EASD 2018, Session S09; Xiang AH et al. Diabetes Care. 2018 Oct; dc181662.
BERLIN – Gastric banding surgery and metformin produce similar improvements in insulin sensitivity and parameters indicative of preserved beta-cell function in patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to the results of a study conducted by the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) Consortium.
“Both interventions resulted in about 50% improvements in insulin sensitivity at 1 year, which was attenuated at 2 years,” reported study investigator Thomas Buchanan, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“The beta-cell responses fell in a pattern that maintained relatively, but not perfectly, stable compensation for insulin resistance,” he added.
Although glucose levels improved “only slightly,” he said, “acute compensation to glucose improved significantly with gastric banding and beta-cell compensation at maximal stimulation fell significantly with metformin.”
Results of the BetaFat (Beta Cell Restoration through Fat Mitigation) study, which are now published online in Diabetes Care, also showed that greater weight loss could be achieved with surgery versus metformin, with a 8.9 kg difference between the groups at 2 years (10.6 vs. 1.7 kg, respectively, P less than .01).
HDL cholesterol levels also rose with both interventions, and gastric banding resulted in a greater effect on very low–density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as serum ALT, Dr. Buchanan said.
The BetaFat study is one of three “proof-of principle” studies currently being conducted by the RISE Consortium in patients with IGT, sometimes called prediabetes, and T2DM, explained Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, the chair for the RISE studies.
The other two multicenter, randomized trials being conducted by the RISE Consortium are looking at the effects of medications on preserving beta-cell function in pediatric/adolescent (10-19 years) and adult (21-65 years) populations with IGT or mild, recently diagnosed T2DM. The design, and some results, of these trials can be viewed on a dedicated section of the Diabetes Care website.
Beta-cell function is being assessed using “state-of-the-art” methods; the coprimary endpoint of the surgery versus metformin study was the steady state C-peptide level and acute C-peptide response at maximal glycemia measured using a hyperglycemic “clamp.”
The goal of the RISE studies is to test different approaches to preserve beta-cell function. It is designed to answer the question of which is more effective in this setting: sustained weight loss through gastric banding such as in the BetaFat study or medication.
Patients were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were aged 21-65 years, had a body mass index of 30-40 kg/m2, and had IGT or a diagnosis of T2DM within the past year for which they had received no diabetes medication at recruitment.
A total of 88 individuals were randomized with exactly half undergoing gastric banding. This consisted of a gastric band placed laparoscopically and adjusted every 2 months for the first year, and then every 3 months for the following year depending on symptoms and weight change.
Normoglycemia was observed in none of the study subjects at baseline but in 22% and 15% of those who had gastric banding or metformin, respectively, at 2 years (P = .66).
As for tolerability, five patients who underwent gastric banding experienced serious adverse events, of which two were caused by band slippage and three were caused other reasons. In the metformin arm, there were two serious adverse events, both unrelated to the medication.
“Gastric banding and metformin offered approximately equal approaches for improving insulin sensitivity in adults with mild to moderate obesity and impaired glucose tolerance or early, mild type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Buchanan concluded. “The predominant beta-cell response was a reduction in secretion to maintain a relatively constant compensation for insulin resistance, with only a small improvement in glucose. Whether these interventions will have different effects on beta-cell function over the long-term remains to be determined.”
Commenting on the study, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University (England), noted that the changes in the lipid and liver parameters were important. Fasting plasma triglyceride levels fell from 1.3 mmol/L at baseline to 1.1 mmol/L at 2 years with surgery but stayed more or less the same with metformin (1.23 mmol/L and 1.28 mmol/L; P less than .009 comparing surgery and metformin groups at 2 years). Change in ALT levels were also significant comparing baseline values with results at 2 years, decreasing in the surgical group to a greater extent than in the metformin groups.
“There’s a really important message here, the predictors of a better response to the weight loss [i.e. changes in triglycerides and liver enzymes] are all there,” Dr. Taylor observed. “RISE has looked at 2 years of this effect, but the conversion to type 2 diabetes is probably going to happen over a longer time course.”
He added that “although the primary outcome measure of change in insulin secretion was not achieved, the writing is on the wall. These people, provided they maintain their weight loss, are likely to succeed. We see all the hallmarks of a successful outcome for the weight loss group – remove the primary driver for type 2 diabetes, and that group is on track.”
The RISE Consortium conducted the BetaFat study. The RISE Consortium is supported by grants from the National Institutes for Health. Further support came from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, the American Diabetes Association, and Allergan. Additional donations of supplies were provided by Allergan, Apollo Endosurgery, Abbott, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buchanan reported receiving research funding from Allergan and Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Taylor had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Buchanan T et al. EASD 2018, Session S09; Xiang AH et al. Diabetes Care. 2018 Oct; dc181662.
BERLIN – Gastric banding surgery and metformin produce similar improvements in insulin sensitivity and parameters indicative of preserved beta-cell function in patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to the results of a study conducted by the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) Consortium.
“Both interventions resulted in about 50% improvements in insulin sensitivity at 1 year, which was attenuated at 2 years,” reported study investigator Thomas Buchanan, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“The beta-cell responses fell in a pattern that maintained relatively, but not perfectly, stable compensation for insulin resistance,” he added.
Although glucose levels improved “only slightly,” he said, “acute compensation to glucose improved significantly with gastric banding and beta-cell compensation at maximal stimulation fell significantly with metformin.”
Results of the BetaFat (Beta Cell Restoration through Fat Mitigation) study, which are now published online in Diabetes Care, also showed that greater weight loss could be achieved with surgery versus metformin, with a 8.9 kg difference between the groups at 2 years (10.6 vs. 1.7 kg, respectively, P less than .01).
HDL cholesterol levels also rose with both interventions, and gastric banding resulted in a greater effect on very low–density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as serum ALT, Dr. Buchanan said.
The BetaFat study is one of three “proof-of principle” studies currently being conducted by the RISE Consortium in patients with IGT, sometimes called prediabetes, and T2DM, explained Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, the chair for the RISE studies.
The other two multicenter, randomized trials being conducted by the RISE Consortium are looking at the effects of medications on preserving beta-cell function in pediatric/adolescent (10-19 years) and adult (21-65 years) populations with IGT or mild, recently diagnosed T2DM. The design, and some results, of these trials can be viewed on a dedicated section of the Diabetes Care website.
Beta-cell function is being assessed using “state-of-the-art” methods; the coprimary endpoint of the surgery versus metformin study was the steady state C-peptide level and acute C-peptide response at maximal glycemia measured using a hyperglycemic “clamp.”
The goal of the RISE studies is to test different approaches to preserve beta-cell function. It is designed to answer the question of which is more effective in this setting: sustained weight loss through gastric banding such as in the BetaFat study or medication.
Patients were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were aged 21-65 years, had a body mass index of 30-40 kg/m2, and had IGT or a diagnosis of T2DM within the past year for which they had received no diabetes medication at recruitment.
A total of 88 individuals were randomized with exactly half undergoing gastric banding. This consisted of a gastric band placed laparoscopically and adjusted every 2 months for the first year, and then every 3 months for the following year depending on symptoms and weight change.
Normoglycemia was observed in none of the study subjects at baseline but in 22% and 15% of those who had gastric banding or metformin, respectively, at 2 years (P = .66).
As for tolerability, five patients who underwent gastric banding experienced serious adverse events, of which two were caused by band slippage and three were caused other reasons. In the metformin arm, there were two serious adverse events, both unrelated to the medication.
“Gastric banding and metformin offered approximately equal approaches for improving insulin sensitivity in adults with mild to moderate obesity and impaired glucose tolerance or early, mild type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Buchanan concluded. “The predominant beta-cell response was a reduction in secretion to maintain a relatively constant compensation for insulin resistance, with only a small improvement in glucose. Whether these interventions will have different effects on beta-cell function over the long-term remains to be determined.”
Commenting on the study, Roy Taylor, MD, professor of medicine and metabolism at Newcastle University (England), noted that the changes in the lipid and liver parameters were important. Fasting plasma triglyceride levels fell from 1.3 mmol/L at baseline to 1.1 mmol/L at 2 years with surgery but stayed more or less the same with metformin (1.23 mmol/L and 1.28 mmol/L; P less than .009 comparing surgery and metformin groups at 2 years). Change in ALT levels were also significant comparing baseline values with results at 2 years, decreasing in the surgical group to a greater extent than in the metformin groups.
“There’s a really important message here, the predictors of a better response to the weight loss [i.e. changes in triglycerides and liver enzymes] are all there,” Dr. Taylor observed. “RISE has looked at 2 years of this effect, but the conversion to type 2 diabetes is probably going to happen over a longer time course.”
He added that “although the primary outcome measure of change in insulin secretion was not achieved, the writing is on the wall. These people, provided they maintain their weight loss, are likely to succeed. We see all the hallmarks of a successful outcome for the weight loss group – remove the primary driver for type 2 diabetes, and that group is on track.”
The RISE Consortium conducted the BetaFat study. The RISE Consortium is supported by grants from the National Institutes for Health. Further support came from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, the American Diabetes Association, and Allergan. Additional donations of supplies were provided by Allergan, Apollo Endosurgery, Abbott, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buchanan reported receiving research funding from Allergan and Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Taylor had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Buchanan T et al. EASD 2018, Session S09; Xiang AH et al. Diabetes Care. 2018 Oct; dc181662.
REPORTING FROM EASD 2018
Key clinical point: Over 2 years, gastric banding surgery and metformin produced similar improvements in insulin sensitivity and parameters suggestive of preserved beta-cell function in patients with prediabetes or early type 2 diabetes.
Major finding: Around a 50% improvement in insulin sensitivity was seen in both study groups at 1 year with attenuation of the effect at 2 years.
Study details: The BetaFat study included 88 obese adults with impaired glucose tolerance or newly diagnosed early type 2 diabetes.
Disclosures: The study was part of the RISE studies, which are supported by grants from the National Institutes for Health. Further support comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, the American Diabetes Association, and Allergan. Additional donations of supplies are provided by Allergan, Apollo Endosurgery, Abbott Laboratories, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buchanan reported research funding from Allergan and Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Taylor had no conflicts of interest.
Sources: Buchanan T et al. EASD 2018, Session S09; Xiang AH et al. Diabetes Care. 2018 Oct; dc181662.
Shelved GLP-1 agonist reduced cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus
BERLIN – Albiglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, added on top of the standard of care reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with established cardiovascular disease by a significant 22% versus placebo in the HARMONY Outcomes trial, according to results reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The trial’s findings, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, have added “further support that evidence-based GLP-1 receptor agonists should be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes as recommended by recent cardiology and diabetes guidelines,” said study investigator Lawrence Leiter, MD.
Albiglutide was approved for the treatment of T2DM by the European Medicines Agency as Eperzan and by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States as Tanzeum in 2014. Last year, however, its manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, announced that it would cease further research and development, manufacturing, and sales activity for albiglutide. Nevertheless, the company remained committed to completing the HARMONY Outcomes trial, begun in 2015.
In a press release issued by GSK on Oct. 2, 2018, the same day as the trial’s findings were revealed, John Lepore, MD, the senior vice president of GSK’s R&D pipeline said, “HARMONY Outcomes was an important study for us to complete to generate new data and insights about the role of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in the management of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Lepore added, “GSK continued to invest in this study… and we continue to explore opportunities to divest this medicine to a company with the right expertise and resources to realize its full potential for patients.”
During his summing up of the HARMONY Outcomes data, Dr. Leiter of the University of Toronto observed that all components of the composite primary endpoint – which included MI, cardiovascular death, and stroke – were “directionally consistent with overall benefit.” However, it was the 25% reduction in MI that drove the overall benefit seen.
With an average duration of follow-up of just 1.6 years, it was no wonder perhaps that no effect on a long-term outcome such as cardiovascular death was seen, Dr. Leiter suggested. Insufficient trial length was a fact picked up by the independent commentator for the trial David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England).
“HARMONY recruited patients who were extremely near the edge of a cliff,” Dr. Matthews observed, noting that, if a trial was to be completed in such a short span of time, a very-high-risk population needed to be recruited.
Indeed, 100% of the study population in the trial had cardiovascular disease; specifically, 70% had coronary artery disease, 47% had a prior MI, 43% had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 25% had peripheral arterial disease. In addition, 86% had hypertension, 20% had heart failure, and 18% had experienced a stroke. Furthermore, the average hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at baseline was 8.7%.
When you are thinking about trial design, you want to recruit patients who are near the edge so that you see lots of events, but not too near such that treatment makes no difference and not too far from the edge or the trial will go on and on, Dr. Matthews observed.
With regards to the primary composite endpoint, he noted that no adjustment of the significance level was needed to test the superiority of albiglutide over placebo. The hazard ratio was 0.78, with a P value of less than .0001 for noninferiority and P = .0006 for superiority, and event rates per 100 patient-years were 4.57 for albiglutide and 5.87 for placebo.
The mean change in HbA1c over time was greater with albiglutide than with placebo, with a between-group difference of –0.63% at 8 months and –0.52% at 16 months. These data suggest that albiglutide seems to have weaker effects than semaglutide, Dr. Matthews noted.
“The odd thing about albiglutide was the weight didn’t change,” Dr. Matthews observed when discussing some of the secondary endpoints. The difference in body weight between albiglutide and placebo was –0.66 kg at 8 months and –0.83 kg at 16 months.
If the results on body mass index with another GLP-1 agonist, semaglutide, were considered, effects on body weight in the HARMONY Outcomes trial were negligible, Dr. Matthews added. This point was something Twitter users also commented on.
“The weight loss is really modest with albiglutide in HARMONY”, said Abd Tahrani, MD, an National Institute for Health Research clinician scientist at the University of Birmingham (U.K.) and an honorary consultant endocrinologist the Heart of England National Health Service Foundation Trust in Birmingham.
Syed Gilani, MD, a general practitioner and champion for Diabetes UK, as well as being a clinical research fellow in diabetes and senior lecturer at the University of Wolverhampton (England), agreed and tweeted: “Is there a hint of GLP-1 class effect?”
While another U.K. diabetes consultant, Partha Kar, MD, a diabetes consultant and endocrinologist at Queen Alexandria Hospital, Portsmouth, England, tweeted: “Game-changer or confirmatory of class effect with better options available?”
The lack of a weight effect could be an advantage of course, Dr. Matthews observed; differences in the GLP-1 agonists could be matched to patients’ needs, with those you do not want to lose weight being given albiglutide.
In an editorial also published in the Lancet (2018 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32348-1), Marion Mafham and David Preiss, PhD, who are both from the University of Oxford, observed that “given the clear cardiovascular benefit observed with albiglutide … GlaxoSmithKline should reconsider making it available to patients.”
Ms. Mafham and Dr. Preiss also noted in their comments that, while there has been inconsistency among GLP-1 trials, the HARMONY Outcomes data now add to the evidence of a cardiovascular benefit as seen in the SUSTAIN-6 trial with semaglutide and in the LEADER trial with liraglutide.
“International guidelines should reflect the increasing weight of evidence that supports the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” the editorialists wrote.
The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Leiter was an investigator in the study and disclosed receiving research funding and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis, as well as honoraria from Servier. Dr. Lepore is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Matthews disclosed acting as an advisory board member for and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Janssen, and Servier. Ms. Mafham has no competing interests. Dr. Preiss is an investigator in a trial funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Hernandez AF et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32261-X.
BERLIN – Albiglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, added on top of the standard of care reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with established cardiovascular disease by a significant 22% versus placebo in the HARMONY Outcomes trial, according to results reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The trial’s findings, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, have added “further support that evidence-based GLP-1 receptor agonists should be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes as recommended by recent cardiology and diabetes guidelines,” said study investigator Lawrence Leiter, MD.
Albiglutide was approved for the treatment of T2DM by the European Medicines Agency as Eperzan and by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States as Tanzeum in 2014. Last year, however, its manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, announced that it would cease further research and development, manufacturing, and sales activity for albiglutide. Nevertheless, the company remained committed to completing the HARMONY Outcomes trial, begun in 2015.
In a press release issued by GSK on Oct. 2, 2018, the same day as the trial’s findings were revealed, John Lepore, MD, the senior vice president of GSK’s R&D pipeline said, “HARMONY Outcomes was an important study for us to complete to generate new data and insights about the role of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in the management of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Lepore added, “GSK continued to invest in this study… and we continue to explore opportunities to divest this medicine to a company with the right expertise and resources to realize its full potential for patients.”
During his summing up of the HARMONY Outcomes data, Dr. Leiter of the University of Toronto observed that all components of the composite primary endpoint – which included MI, cardiovascular death, and stroke – were “directionally consistent with overall benefit.” However, it was the 25% reduction in MI that drove the overall benefit seen.
With an average duration of follow-up of just 1.6 years, it was no wonder perhaps that no effect on a long-term outcome such as cardiovascular death was seen, Dr. Leiter suggested. Insufficient trial length was a fact picked up by the independent commentator for the trial David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England).
“HARMONY recruited patients who were extremely near the edge of a cliff,” Dr. Matthews observed, noting that, if a trial was to be completed in such a short span of time, a very-high-risk population needed to be recruited.
Indeed, 100% of the study population in the trial had cardiovascular disease; specifically, 70% had coronary artery disease, 47% had a prior MI, 43% had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 25% had peripheral arterial disease. In addition, 86% had hypertension, 20% had heart failure, and 18% had experienced a stroke. Furthermore, the average hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at baseline was 8.7%.
When you are thinking about trial design, you want to recruit patients who are near the edge so that you see lots of events, but not too near such that treatment makes no difference and not too far from the edge or the trial will go on and on, Dr. Matthews observed.
With regards to the primary composite endpoint, he noted that no adjustment of the significance level was needed to test the superiority of albiglutide over placebo. The hazard ratio was 0.78, with a P value of less than .0001 for noninferiority and P = .0006 for superiority, and event rates per 100 patient-years were 4.57 for albiglutide and 5.87 for placebo.
The mean change in HbA1c over time was greater with albiglutide than with placebo, with a between-group difference of –0.63% at 8 months and –0.52% at 16 months. These data suggest that albiglutide seems to have weaker effects than semaglutide, Dr. Matthews noted.
“The odd thing about albiglutide was the weight didn’t change,” Dr. Matthews observed when discussing some of the secondary endpoints. The difference in body weight between albiglutide and placebo was –0.66 kg at 8 months and –0.83 kg at 16 months.
If the results on body mass index with another GLP-1 agonist, semaglutide, were considered, effects on body weight in the HARMONY Outcomes trial were negligible, Dr. Matthews added. This point was something Twitter users also commented on.
“The weight loss is really modest with albiglutide in HARMONY”, said Abd Tahrani, MD, an National Institute for Health Research clinician scientist at the University of Birmingham (U.K.) and an honorary consultant endocrinologist the Heart of England National Health Service Foundation Trust in Birmingham.
Syed Gilani, MD, a general practitioner and champion for Diabetes UK, as well as being a clinical research fellow in diabetes and senior lecturer at the University of Wolverhampton (England), agreed and tweeted: “Is there a hint of GLP-1 class effect?”
While another U.K. diabetes consultant, Partha Kar, MD, a diabetes consultant and endocrinologist at Queen Alexandria Hospital, Portsmouth, England, tweeted: “Game-changer or confirmatory of class effect with better options available?”
The lack of a weight effect could be an advantage of course, Dr. Matthews observed; differences in the GLP-1 agonists could be matched to patients’ needs, with those you do not want to lose weight being given albiglutide.
In an editorial also published in the Lancet (2018 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32348-1), Marion Mafham and David Preiss, PhD, who are both from the University of Oxford, observed that “given the clear cardiovascular benefit observed with albiglutide … GlaxoSmithKline should reconsider making it available to patients.”
Ms. Mafham and Dr. Preiss also noted in their comments that, while there has been inconsistency among GLP-1 trials, the HARMONY Outcomes data now add to the evidence of a cardiovascular benefit as seen in the SUSTAIN-6 trial with semaglutide and in the LEADER trial with liraglutide.
“International guidelines should reflect the increasing weight of evidence that supports the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” the editorialists wrote.
The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Leiter was an investigator in the study and disclosed receiving research funding and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis, as well as honoraria from Servier. Dr. Lepore is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Matthews disclosed acting as an advisory board member for and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Janssen, and Servier. Ms. Mafham has no competing interests. Dr. Preiss is an investigator in a trial funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Hernandez AF et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32261-X.
BERLIN – Albiglutide, a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonist, added on top of the standard of care reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with established cardiovascular disease by a significant 22% versus placebo in the HARMONY Outcomes trial, according to results reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
The trial’s findings, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, have added “further support that evidence-based GLP-1 receptor agonists should be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes as recommended by recent cardiology and diabetes guidelines,” said study investigator Lawrence Leiter, MD.
Albiglutide was approved for the treatment of T2DM by the European Medicines Agency as Eperzan and by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States as Tanzeum in 2014. Last year, however, its manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, announced that it would cease further research and development, manufacturing, and sales activity for albiglutide. Nevertheless, the company remained committed to completing the HARMONY Outcomes trial, begun in 2015.
In a press release issued by GSK on Oct. 2, 2018, the same day as the trial’s findings were revealed, John Lepore, MD, the senior vice president of GSK’s R&D pipeline said, “HARMONY Outcomes was an important study for us to complete to generate new data and insights about the role of the GLP-1 receptor agonist class in the management of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease.”
Dr. Lepore added, “GSK continued to invest in this study… and we continue to explore opportunities to divest this medicine to a company with the right expertise and resources to realize its full potential for patients.”
During his summing up of the HARMONY Outcomes data, Dr. Leiter of the University of Toronto observed that all components of the composite primary endpoint – which included MI, cardiovascular death, and stroke – were “directionally consistent with overall benefit.” However, it was the 25% reduction in MI that drove the overall benefit seen.
With an average duration of follow-up of just 1.6 years, it was no wonder perhaps that no effect on a long-term outcome such as cardiovascular death was seen, Dr. Leiter suggested. Insufficient trial length was a fact picked up by the independent commentator for the trial David Matthews, MD, professor of diabetic medicine at the University of Oxford (England).
“HARMONY recruited patients who were extremely near the edge of a cliff,” Dr. Matthews observed, noting that, if a trial was to be completed in such a short span of time, a very-high-risk population needed to be recruited.
Indeed, 100% of the study population in the trial had cardiovascular disease; specifically, 70% had coronary artery disease, 47% had a prior MI, 43% had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and 25% had peripheral arterial disease. In addition, 86% had hypertension, 20% had heart failure, and 18% had experienced a stroke. Furthermore, the average hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at baseline was 8.7%.
When you are thinking about trial design, you want to recruit patients who are near the edge so that you see lots of events, but not too near such that treatment makes no difference and not too far from the edge or the trial will go on and on, Dr. Matthews observed.
With regards to the primary composite endpoint, he noted that no adjustment of the significance level was needed to test the superiority of albiglutide over placebo. The hazard ratio was 0.78, with a P value of less than .0001 for noninferiority and P = .0006 for superiority, and event rates per 100 patient-years were 4.57 for albiglutide and 5.87 for placebo.
The mean change in HbA1c over time was greater with albiglutide than with placebo, with a between-group difference of –0.63% at 8 months and –0.52% at 16 months. These data suggest that albiglutide seems to have weaker effects than semaglutide, Dr. Matthews noted.
“The odd thing about albiglutide was the weight didn’t change,” Dr. Matthews observed when discussing some of the secondary endpoints. The difference in body weight between albiglutide and placebo was –0.66 kg at 8 months and –0.83 kg at 16 months.
If the results on body mass index with another GLP-1 agonist, semaglutide, were considered, effects on body weight in the HARMONY Outcomes trial were negligible, Dr. Matthews added. This point was something Twitter users also commented on.
“The weight loss is really modest with albiglutide in HARMONY”, said Abd Tahrani, MD, an National Institute for Health Research clinician scientist at the University of Birmingham (U.K.) and an honorary consultant endocrinologist the Heart of England National Health Service Foundation Trust in Birmingham.
Syed Gilani, MD, a general practitioner and champion for Diabetes UK, as well as being a clinical research fellow in diabetes and senior lecturer at the University of Wolverhampton (England), agreed and tweeted: “Is there a hint of GLP-1 class effect?”
While another U.K. diabetes consultant, Partha Kar, MD, a diabetes consultant and endocrinologist at Queen Alexandria Hospital, Portsmouth, England, tweeted: “Game-changer or confirmatory of class effect with better options available?”
The lack of a weight effect could be an advantage of course, Dr. Matthews observed; differences in the GLP-1 agonists could be matched to patients’ needs, with those you do not want to lose weight being given albiglutide.
In an editorial also published in the Lancet (2018 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[18]32348-1), Marion Mafham and David Preiss, PhD, who are both from the University of Oxford, observed that “given the clear cardiovascular benefit observed with albiglutide … GlaxoSmithKline should reconsider making it available to patients.”
Ms. Mafham and Dr. Preiss also noted in their comments that, while there has been inconsistency among GLP-1 trials, the HARMONY Outcomes data now add to the evidence of a cardiovascular benefit as seen in the SUSTAIN-6 trial with semaglutide and in the LEADER trial with liraglutide.
“International guidelines should reflect the increasing weight of evidence that supports the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” the editorialists wrote.
The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Leiter was an investigator in the study and disclosed receiving research funding and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis, as well as honoraria from Servier. Dr. Lepore is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Matthews disclosed acting as an advisory board member for and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Janssen, and Servier. Ms. Mafham has no competing interests. Dr. Preiss is an investigator in a trial funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Hernandez AF et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32261-X.
REPORTING FROM EASD 2018
Key clinical point: The overall reduction was led by a reduction in the rate of MI.
Major finding: Albiglutide reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by 22%, compared with placebo, in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease.
Study details: HARMONY Outcomes, a postapproval, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of once-weekly, subcutaneous albiglutide (30-50 mg) versus matched placebo in 9,463 randomized patients.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Leiter was an investigator in the study and disclosed receiving research funding and honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi Aventis, as well as honoraria from Servier. Dr. Lepore is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Matthews disclosed acting as an advisory board member for and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Janssen, and Servier. Dr. Mafham has no competing interests. Dr. Preiss is an investigator in a trial funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Source: Hernandez AF et al. Lancet. 2018 Oct 2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32261-X.