Pharmacology

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disease becoming more prevalent each year and is the seventh-leading cause of death in the United States.¹ The most common reason for hospitalization for patients with T2DM is uncontrolled glycemic levels.² Nearly 25% of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patient population has T2DM.³ T2DM is the leading cause of blindness, end-stage renal disease, and amputation for VA patients.⁴

According to the 2023 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, treatment goals of T2DM include eliminating symptoms, preventing or delaying complications, and attaining glycemic goals. A typical hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) goal range is < 7%, but individual goals can vary up to < 9% due to a multitude of factors, including patient comorbidities and clinical status.⁵

Initial treatment recommendations are nonpharmacologic and include comprehensive lifestyle interventions such as optimizing nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral therapy. When pharmacologic therapy is required, metformin is the preferred first-line treatment for the majority of newly diagnosed patients with T2DM and should be added to continued lifestyle management.⁵ If HbA_1c levels remains above goal, the 2023 ADA guidelines recommend adding a second medication, including but not limited to insulin, a glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor. Medication choice is largely based on the patient’s concomitant conditions (eg, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease). The 2023 ADA guidelines suggest initiating insulin therapy when a patient's blood glucose ≥ 300 mg/dL, HbA_1c > 10%, or if the patient has symptoms of hyperglycemia, even at initial diagnosis. Initiating medications to minimize or avoid hypoglycemia is a priority, especially in high-risk individuals.⁵

Clinical evidence shows that GLP-1RAs may provide similar glycemic control to insulin with lower risk of hypoglycemia.⁶ Other reported benefits of GLP-1RAs include weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and improved lipid levels. The most common adverse events (AEs) with GLP-1RAs are gastrointestinal. Including GLP-1RAs in T2DM pharmacotherapy may lower the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in patients at high risk of hypoglycemia.

The 2023 ADA guidelines indicate that it is appropriate to initiate GLP-]1RAs in patients on insulin.⁵ However, while GLP-1RAs do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia independently, combination treatment with GLP-1RAs and insulin can still result in hypoglycemia.⁶ Insulin is the key suspect of this hypoglycemic risk.⁷ Thus, if insulin dosage can be reduced or discontinued, this might reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

The literature is limited on how the addition of a GLP-1RA to insulin treatment will affect the patient's daily insulin doses, particularly for the veteran population. The goal of this study is to examine this gap in current research by examining semaglutide, which is the current formulary preferred GLP-1RA at the VA.

Semaglutide is subcutaneously initiated at a dose of 0.25 mg once weekly for 4 weeks to reduce gastrointestinal symptoms, then increased to 0.5 mg weekly. Additional increases to a maintenance dose of 1 mg or 2 mg weekly can occur to achieve glycemic goals. The SUSTAIN-FORTE randomized controlled trial sought to determine whether there was a difference in HbA_1c level reduction and significant weight loss with the 2-mg vs 1-mg dose.⁸ Patients in the trial were taking metformin but needed additional medication to control their HbA_1c. They were not using insulin and may or may not have been taking sulfonylureas prior to semaglutide initiation. Semaglutide 2 mg was found to significantly improve HbA_1c control and promote weight loss compared with semaglutide 1 mg, while maintaining a similar safety profile.

Because this study involved patients who required additional HbA_1c control, although semaglutide reduced HbA_1c, not all patients were able to reduce their other diabetes medications, which depended on the baseline HbA_1c level and the level upon completion of semaglutide titration. Dose reductions for the patients’ other T2DM medications were not reported at trial end. SUSTAIN-FORTE established titration up to semaglutide 2 mg as effective for HbA_1c reduction, although it did not study patients also on insulin.⁸

Insulin is associated with hypoglycemic risk, weight gain, and other AEs.^7,8 This study analyzed whether increasing semaglutide could reduce insulin doses and therefore reduce risk of AEs in patients with T2DM.

Methods

A retrospective, single-center, chart review was conducted at VA Sioux Falls Health Care System (VASFHCS). Data were collected through manual review of VASFHCS electronic medical records. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with active prescriptions for at least once-daily insulin who were initiated on 2-mg weekly dose of semaglutide at the VASFHCS clinical pharmacy practitioner medication management clinic between January 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023, were included. VASFHCS clinical pharmacy practitioners have a scope of practice that allows them to initiate, modify, or discontinue medication therapy within medication management clinics.

The most frequently used prandial insulin at VASFHCS is insulin aspart, and the most frequently used basal insulin is insulin glargine. Patients were retrospectively monitored as they progressed from baseline (the point in time where semaglutide 0.5 mg was initiated) to ≥ 3 months on semaglutide 2-mg therapy. Patients were excluded if they previously used a GLP-1RA or if they were on sliding scale insulin without an exact daily dosage.

The primary endpoint was the percent change in total daily insulin dose from baseline to each dose increase after receiving semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in daily prandial insulin dose, daily basal insulin dose, HbA_1c, and number of hypoglycemic events reported. Data collected included age, race, weight, body mass index, total daily prandial insulin dose, total daily basal insulin dose, HbA_1c, and hypoglycemic events reported at the visit when semaglutide was initiated.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was calculated prior to data collection, and it was determined that for α = .05, 47 patients were needed to achieve 95% power. The primary endpoint was assessed using a paired t test, as were each secondary endpoint. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Sixty-two patients were included. The mean HbA_1c level at baseline was 7.7%, the baseline mean prandial and insulin daily doses were 41.5 units and 85.1 units, respectively (Table 1) From baseline to initiation of a semaglutide 1-mg dose, the daily insulin dose changed –5.6% (95% CI, 2.2-14.0; P = .008). From baseline to 2-mg dose initiation daily insulin changed -22.2% (95% CI, 22.0-35.1; P < .001) and for patients receiving semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months it changed -36.9% (95% CI, 37.4-56.5; P < .001) (Figure).

After receiving the 2-mg dose for ≥ 3 months, the mean daily dose of prandial insulin decreased from 41.5 units to 24.6 units (95% CI, 12.6-21.2; P < .001); mean daily dose of basal insulin decreased from 85.1 units to 52.1 units (95% CI, 23.9-42.0; P < .001); and mean HbA_1c level decreased from 7.7% to 7.1% (95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P < .001). Mean number of hypoglycemic events reported was not statistically significant, changing from 3.6 to 3.2 (95% CI, –0.6 to 0.1; P = .21) (Table 2).

Discussion

This study investigated the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide dose escalation on total daily insulin dose for patients with T2DM. There was a statistically significant decrease in total daily insulin dose from baseline to 1 mg initiation; this decrease continued with further insulin dose reduction seen at the 2-mg dose initiation and additional insulin dose reduction at ≥ 3 months at this dose. It was hypothesized there would be a significant total daily insulin dose reduction at some point, especially when transitioning from the semaglutide 1-mg to the 2-mg dose, based on previous research. ^9,10 The additional reduction in daily insulin dose when continuing on semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months was an unanticipated but added benefit, showing that if tolerated, maintaining the 2-mg dose will help patients reduce their insulin doses.

In terms of secondary endpoints, there was a statistically significant decrease in mean total daily dose individually for prandial and basal insulin from baseline to ≥ 3 months after semaglutide 2 mg initiation. The change in HbA_1c level was also statistically significant and decreased from baseline, even as insulin doses were reduced. This change in HbA_1c level was expected; previous literature has shown a significant link between improving HbA_1c control when semaglutide doses are increased to 2 mg weekly.¹⁰ Due to having been shown in previous trials, it was expected that HbA_1c levels would decrease even when the insulin doses were being reduced.¹⁰ Insulin dose reduction can potentially be added to the growing evidence of semaglutide benefits. The change in the number of hypoglycemic events was not statistically significant, which was unexpected since previous research show a trend in patients taking GLP-1RAs having fewer hypoglycemic events than those taking insulin.⁶ Further investigation with a larger sample size and prospective trial could determine whether this result is an outlier. In this study, there was no increase in HbA_1c or hypoglycemic events reported with increasing semaglutide doses, which provides further evidence of the safety of semaglutide even at higher doses.

These data suggest that for a patient with T2DM who is already taking insulin, the recommended titration of semaglutide is to start with 0.5 mg and titrate up to a 2-mg subcutaneous weekly dose and to then continue at that dose. As long as the 2-mg dose is tolerated, it will provide patients with the most HbA_1c control and lead to a reduction of their total daily insulin doses according to these results.

Strengths and Limitations

This study compared patient data at different points. This method did not require a second distinct control group, which would potentially introduce confounding factors, such as different baseline characteristics. Another strength is that documentation was available for all patients throughout the study so no one was lost to follow-up. This allowed comprehensive data collection and provided a stronger conclusion given the completeness of the data from baseline to follow-up.

Limitations include the retrospective design and small sample size. In addition, the study design did not allow for randomization. There is no documentation of adherence to medication regimen, which was difficult to determine due to the retrospective nature. Other changes to the patients’ medication regimen were not collected in aggregate and thus, it is possible the total daily insulin dose was impacted by other medication changes. There is also potential for inconsistent documentation of the patients’ true total daily insulin dose in the medical record, thus leading to inaccuracy of recorded data.

Conclusions

A small sample of veterans with T2DM had statistically significant reductions in total daily insulin dose when subcutaneous semaglutide was initiated, as well as after each dose increase. There was also a statistically significant reduction in HbA_1c levels from baseline even as patient insulin doses were reduced. These results support the current practice of using semaglutide to treat T2DM, suggesting it may be safe and effective at reducing HbA_1c levels as the dose is titrated up to 2 mg. There was no statistically significant change in the number of hypoglycemic events reported as semaglutide was titrated up. Thus, when semaglutide is increased to the maximum recommended dose of 2 mg for T2DM, patients may experience a reduction of their total daily dose of insulin and HbA_1c levels. These benefits may reduce the risk of insulin-related AEs while maintaining appropriate glycemic control.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disease becoming more prevalent each year and is the seventh-leading cause of death in the United States.¹ The most common reason for hospitalization for patients with T2DM is uncontrolled glycemic levels.² Nearly 25% of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patient population has T2DM.³ T2DM is the leading cause of blindness, end-stage renal disease, and amputation for VA patients.⁴

According to the 2023 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, treatment goals of T2DM include eliminating symptoms, preventing or delaying complications, and attaining glycemic goals. A typical hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) goal range is < 7%, but individual goals can vary up to < 9% due to a multitude of factors, including patient comorbidities and clinical status.⁵

Initial treatment recommendations are nonpharmacologic and include comprehensive lifestyle interventions such as optimizing nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral therapy. When pharmacologic therapy is required, metformin is the preferred first-line treatment for the majority of newly diagnosed patients with T2DM and should be added to continued lifestyle management.⁵ If HbA_1c levels remains above goal, the 2023 ADA guidelines recommend adding a second medication, including but not limited to insulin, a glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor. Medication choice is largely based on the patient’s concomitant conditions (eg, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease). The 2023 ADA guidelines suggest initiating insulin therapy when a patient's blood glucose ≥ 300 mg/dL, HbA_1c > 10%, or if the patient has symptoms of hyperglycemia, even at initial diagnosis. Initiating medications to minimize or avoid hypoglycemia is a priority, especially in high-risk individuals.⁵

Clinical evidence shows that GLP-1RAs may provide similar glycemic control to insulin with lower risk of hypoglycemia.⁶ Other reported benefits of GLP-1RAs include weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and improved lipid levels. The most common adverse events (AEs) with GLP-1RAs are gastrointestinal. Including GLP-1RAs in T2DM pharmacotherapy may lower the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in patients at high risk of hypoglycemia.

The 2023 ADA guidelines indicate that it is appropriate to initiate GLP-]1RAs in patients on insulin.⁵ However, while GLP-1RAs do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia independently, combination treatment with GLP-1RAs and insulin can still result in hypoglycemia.⁶ Insulin is the key suspect of this hypoglycemic risk.⁷ Thus, if insulin dosage can be reduced or discontinued, this might reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

The literature is limited on how the addition of a GLP-1RA to insulin treatment will affect the patient's daily insulin doses, particularly for the veteran population. The goal of this study is to examine this gap in current research by examining semaglutide, which is the current formulary preferred GLP-1RA at the VA.

Semaglutide is subcutaneously initiated at a dose of 0.25 mg once weekly for 4 weeks to reduce gastrointestinal symptoms, then increased to 0.5 mg weekly. Additional increases to a maintenance dose of 1 mg or 2 mg weekly can occur to achieve glycemic goals. The SUSTAIN-FORTE randomized controlled trial sought to determine whether there was a difference in HbA_1c level reduction and significant weight loss with the 2-mg vs 1-mg dose.⁸ Patients in the trial were taking metformin but needed additional medication to control their HbA_1c. They were not using insulin and may or may not have been taking sulfonylureas prior to semaglutide initiation. Semaglutide 2 mg was found to significantly improve HbA_1c control and promote weight loss compared with semaglutide 1 mg, while maintaining a similar safety profile.

Because this study involved patients who required additional HbA_1c control, although semaglutide reduced HbA_1c, not all patients were able to reduce their other diabetes medications, which depended on the baseline HbA_1c level and the level upon completion of semaglutide titration. Dose reductions for the patients’ other T2DM medications were not reported at trial end. SUSTAIN-FORTE established titration up to semaglutide 2 mg as effective for HbA_1c reduction, although it did not study patients also on insulin.⁸

Insulin is associated with hypoglycemic risk, weight gain, and other AEs.^7,8 This study analyzed whether increasing semaglutide could reduce insulin doses and therefore reduce risk of AEs in patients with T2DM.

Methods

A retrospective, single-center, chart review was conducted at VA Sioux Falls Health Care System (VASFHCS). Data were collected through manual review of VASFHCS electronic medical records. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with active prescriptions for at least once-daily insulin who were initiated on 2-mg weekly dose of semaglutide at the VASFHCS clinical pharmacy practitioner medication management clinic between January 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023, were included. VASFHCS clinical pharmacy practitioners have a scope of practice that allows them to initiate, modify, or discontinue medication therapy within medication management clinics.

The most frequently used prandial insulin at VASFHCS is insulin aspart, and the most frequently used basal insulin is insulin glargine. Patients were retrospectively monitored as they progressed from baseline (the point in time where semaglutide 0.5 mg was initiated) to ≥ 3 months on semaglutide 2-mg therapy. Patients were excluded if they previously used a GLP-1RA or if they were on sliding scale insulin without an exact daily dosage.

The primary endpoint was the percent change in total daily insulin dose from baseline to each dose increase after receiving semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in daily prandial insulin dose, daily basal insulin dose, HbA_1c, and number of hypoglycemic events reported. Data collected included age, race, weight, body mass index, total daily prandial insulin dose, total daily basal insulin dose, HbA_1c, and hypoglycemic events reported at the visit when semaglutide was initiated.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was calculated prior to data collection, and it was determined that for α = .05, 47 patients were needed to achieve 95% power. The primary endpoint was assessed using a paired t test, as were each secondary endpoint. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Sixty-two patients were included. The mean HbA_1c level at baseline was 7.7%, the baseline mean prandial and insulin daily doses were 41.5 units and 85.1 units, respectively (Table 1) From baseline to initiation of a semaglutide 1-mg dose, the daily insulin dose changed –5.6% (95% CI, 2.2-14.0; P = .008). From baseline to 2-mg dose initiation daily insulin changed -22.2% (95% CI, 22.0-35.1; P < .001) and for patients receiving semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months it changed -36.9% (95% CI, 37.4-56.5; P < .001) (Figure).

After receiving the 2-mg dose for ≥ 3 months, the mean daily dose of prandial insulin decreased from 41.5 units to 24.6 units (95% CI, 12.6-21.2; P < .001); mean daily dose of basal insulin decreased from 85.1 units to 52.1 units (95% CI, 23.9-42.0; P < .001); and mean HbA_1c level decreased from 7.7% to 7.1% (95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P < .001). Mean number of hypoglycemic events reported was not statistically significant, changing from 3.6 to 3.2 (95% CI, –0.6 to 0.1; P = .21) (Table 2).

Discussion

This study investigated the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide dose escalation on total daily insulin dose for patients with T2DM. There was a statistically significant decrease in total daily insulin dose from baseline to 1 mg initiation; this decrease continued with further insulin dose reduction seen at the 2-mg dose initiation and additional insulin dose reduction at ≥ 3 months at this dose. It was hypothesized there would be a significant total daily insulin dose reduction at some point, especially when transitioning from the semaglutide 1-mg to the 2-mg dose, based on previous research. ^9,10 The additional reduction in daily insulin dose when continuing on semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months was an unanticipated but added benefit, showing that if tolerated, maintaining the 2-mg dose will help patients reduce their insulin doses.

In terms of secondary endpoints, there was a statistically significant decrease in mean total daily dose individually for prandial and basal insulin from baseline to ≥ 3 months after semaglutide 2 mg initiation. The change in HbA_1c level was also statistically significant and decreased from baseline, even as insulin doses were reduced. This change in HbA_1c level was expected; previous literature has shown a significant link between improving HbA_1c control when semaglutide doses are increased to 2 mg weekly.¹⁰ Due to having been shown in previous trials, it was expected that HbA_1c levels would decrease even when the insulin doses were being reduced.¹⁰ Insulin dose reduction can potentially be added to the growing evidence of semaglutide benefits. The change in the number of hypoglycemic events was not statistically significant, which was unexpected since previous research show a trend in patients taking GLP-1RAs having fewer hypoglycemic events than those taking insulin.⁶ Further investigation with a larger sample size and prospective trial could determine whether this result is an outlier. In this study, there was no increase in HbA_1c or hypoglycemic events reported with increasing semaglutide doses, which provides further evidence of the safety of semaglutide even at higher doses.

These data suggest that for a patient with T2DM who is already taking insulin, the recommended titration of semaglutide is to start with 0.5 mg and titrate up to a 2-mg subcutaneous weekly dose and to then continue at that dose. As long as the 2-mg dose is tolerated, it will provide patients with the most HbA_1c control and lead to a reduction of their total daily insulin doses according to these results.

Strengths and Limitations

This study compared patient data at different points. This method did not require a second distinct control group, which would potentially introduce confounding factors, such as different baseline characteristics. Another strength is that documentation was available for all patients throughout the study so no one was lost to follow-up. This allowed comprehensive data collection and provided a stronger conclusion given the completeness of the data from baseline to follow-up.

Limitations include the retrospective design and small sample size. In addition, the study design did not allow for randomization. There is no documentation of adherence to medication regimen, which was difficult to determine due to the retrospective nature. Other changes to the patients’ medication regimen were not collected in aggregate and thus, it is possible the total daily insulin dose was impacted by other medication changes. There is also potential for inconsistent documentation of the patients’ true total daily insulin dose in the medical record, thus leading to inaccuracy of recorded data.

Conclusions

A small sample of veterans with T2DM had statistically significant reductions in total daily insulin dose when subcutaneous semaglutide was initiated, as well as after each dose increase. There was also a statistically significant reduction in HbA_1c levels from baseline even as patient insulin doses were reduced. These results support the current practice of using semaglutide to treat T2DM, suggesting it may be safe and effective at reducing HbA_1c levels as the dose is titrated up to 2 mg. There was no statistically significant change in the number of hypoglycemic events reported as semaglutide was titrated up. Thus, when semaglutide is increased to the maximum recommended dose of 2 mg for T2DM, patients may experience a reduction of their total daily dose of insulin and HbA_1c levels. These benefits may reduce the risk of insulin-related AEs while maintaining appropriate glycemic control.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disease becoming more prevalent each year and is the seventh-leading cause of death in the United States.¹ The most common reason for hospitalization for patients with T2DM is uncontrolled glycemic levels.² Nearly 25% of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patient population has T2DM.³ T2DM is the leading cause of blindness, end-stage renal disease, and amputation for VA patients.⁴

According to the 2023 American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, treatment goals of T2DM include eliminating symptoms, preventing or delaying complications, and attaining glycemic goals. A typical hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) goal range is < 7%, but individual goals can vary up to < 9% due to a multitude of factors, including patient comorbidities and clinical status.⁵

Initial treatment recommendations are nonpharmacologic and include comprehensive lifestyle interventions such as optimizing nutrition, physical activity, and behavioral therapy. When pharmacologic therapy is required, metformin is the preferred first-line treatment for the majority of newly diagnosed patients with T2DM and should be added to continued lifestyle management.⁵ If HbA_1c levels remains above goal, the 2023 ADA guidelines recommend adding a second medication, including but not limited to insulin, a glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor. Medication choice is largely based on the patient’s concomitant conditions (eg, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease). The 2023 ADA guidelines suggest initiating insulin therapy when a patient's blood glucose ≥ 300 mg/dL, HbA_1c > 10%, or if the patient has symptoms of hyperglycemia, even at initial diagnosis. Initiating medications to minimize or avoid hypoglycemia is a priority, especially in high-risk individuals.⁵

Clinical evidence shows that GLP-1RAs may provide similar glycemic control to insulin with lower risk of hypoglycemia.⁶ Other reported benefits of GLP-1RAs include weight loss, blood pressure reduction, and improved lipid levels. The most common adverse events (AEs) with GLP-1RAs are gastrointestinal. Including GLP-1RAs in T2DM pharmacotherapy may lower the risk of hypoglycemia, especially in patients at high risk of hypoglycemia.

The 2023 ADA guidelines indicate that it is appropriate to initiate GLP-]1RAs in patients on insulin.⁵ However, while GLP-1RAs do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia independently, combination treatment with GLP-1RAs and insulin can still result in hypoglycemia.⁶ Insulin is the key suspect of this hypoglycemic risk.⁷ Thus, if insulin dosage can be reduced or discontinued, this might reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

The literature is limited on how the addition of a GLP-1RA to insulin treatment will affect the patient's daily insulin doses, particularly for the veteran population. The goal of this study is to examine this gap in current research by examining semaglutide, which is the current formulary preferred GLP-1RA at the VA.

Semaglutide is subcutaneously initiated at a dose of 0.25 mg once weekly for 4 weeks to reduce gastrointestinal symptoms, then increased to 0.5 mg weekly. Additional increases to a maintenance dose of 1 mg or 2 mg weekly can occur to achieve glycemic goals. The SUSTAIN-FORTE randomized controlled trial sought to determine whether there was a difference in HbA_1c level reduction and significant weight loss with the 2-mg vs 1-mg dose.⁸ Patients in the trial were taking metformin but needed additional medication to control their HbA_1c. They were not using insulin and may or may not have been taking sulfonylureas prior to semaglutide initiation. Semaglutide 2 mg was found to significantly improve HbA_1c control and promote weight loss compared with semaglutide 1 mg, while maintaining a similar safety profile.

Because this study involved patients who required additional HbA_1c control, although semaglutide reduced HbA_1c, not all patients were able to reduce their other diabetes medications, which depended on the baseline HbA_1c level and the level upon completion of semaglutide titration. Dose reductions for the patients’ other T2DM medications were not reported at trial end. SUSTAIN-FORTE established titration up to semaglutide 2 mg as effective for HbA_1c reduction, although it did not study patients also on insulin.⁸

Insulin is associated with hypoglycemic risk, weight gain, and other AEs.^7,8 This study analyzed whether increasing semaglutide could reduce insulin doses and therefore reduce risk of AEs in patients with T2DM.

Methods

A retrospective, single-center, chart review was conducted at VA Sioux Falls Health Care System (VASFHCS). Data were collected through manual review of VASFHCS electronic medical records. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with active prescriptions for at least once-daily insulin who were initiated on 2-mg weekly dose of semaglutide at the VASFHCS clinical pharmacy practitioner medication management clinic between January 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023, were included. VASFHCS clinical pharmacy practitioners have a scope of practice that allows them to initiate, modify, or discontinue medication therapy within medication management clinics.

The most frequently used prandial insulin at VASFHCS is insulin aspart, and the most frequently used basal insulin is insulin glargine. Patients were retrospectively monitored as they progressed from baseline (the point in time where semaglutide 0.5 mg was initiated) to ≥ 3 months on semaglutide 2-mg therapy. Patients were excluded if they previously used a GLP-1RA or if they were on sliding scale insulin without an exact daily dosage.

The primary endpoint was the percent change in total daily insulin dose from baseline to each dose increase after receiving semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in daily prandial insulin dose, daily basal insulin dose, HbA_1c, and number of hypoglycemic events reported. Data collected included age, race, weight, body mass index, total daily prandial insulin dose, total daily basal insulin dose, HbA_1c, and hypoglycemic events reported at the visit when semaglutide was initiated.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was calculated prior to data collection, and it was determined that for α = .05, 47 patients were needed to achieve 95% power. The primary endpoint was assessed using a paired t test, as were each secondary endpoint. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Sixty-two patients were included. The mean HbA_1c level at baseline was 7.7%, the baseline mean prandial and insulin daily doses were 41.5 units and 85.1 units, respectively (Table 1) From baseline to initiation of a semaglutide 1-mg dose, the daily insulin dose changed –5.6% (95% CI, 2.2-14.0; P = .008). From baseline to 2-mg dose initiation daily insulin changed -22.2% (95% CI, 22.0-35.1; P < .001) and for patients receiving semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months it changed -36.9% (95% CI, 37.4-56.5; P < .001) (Figure).

After receiving the 2-mg dose for ≥ 3 months, the mean daily dose of prandial insulin decreased from 41.5 units to 24.6 units (95% CI, 12.6-21.2; P < .001); mean daily dose of basal insulin decreased from 85.1 units to 52.1 units (95% CI, 23.9-42.0; P < .001); and mean HbA_1c level decreased from 7.7% to 7.1% (95% CI, 0.3-0.8; P < .001). Mean number of hypoglycemic events reported was not statistically significant, changing from 3.6 to 3.2 (95% CI, –0.6 to 0.1; P = .21) (Table 2).

Discussion

This study investigated the effect of subcutaneous semaglutide dose escalation on total daily insulin dose for patients with T2DM. There was a statistically significant decrease in total daily insulin dose from baseline to 1 mg initiation; this decrease continued with further insulin dose reduction seen at the 2-mg dose initiation and additional insulin dose reduction at ≥ 3 months at this dose. It was hypothesized there would be a significant total daily insulin dose reduction at some point, especially when transitioning from the semaglutide 1-mg to the 2-mg dose, based on previous research. ^9,10 The additional reduction in daily insulin dose when continuing on semaglutide 2 mg for ≥ 3 months was an unanticipated but added benefit, showing that if tolerated, maintaining the 2-mg dose will help patients reduce their insulin doses.

In terms of secondary endpoints, there was a statistically significant decrease in mean total daily dose individually for prandial and basal insulin from baseline to ≥ 3 months after semaglutide 2 mg initiation. The change in HbA_1c level was also statistically significant and decreased from baseline, even as insulin doses were reduced. This change in HbA_1c level was expected; previous literature has shown a significant link between improving HbA_1c control when semaglutide doses are increased to 2 mg weekly.¹⁰ Due to having been shown in previous trials, it was expected that HbA_1c levels would decrease even when the insulin doses were being reduced.¹⁰ Insulin dose reduction can potentially be added to the growing evidence of semaglutide benefits. The change in the number of hypoglycemic events was not statistically significant, which was unexpected since previous research show a trend in patients taking GLP-1RAs having fewer hypoglycemic events than those taking insulin.⁶ Further investigation with a larger sample size and prospective trial could determine whether this result is an outlier. In this study, there was no increase in HbA_1c or hypoglycemic events reported with increasing semaglutide doses, which provides further evidence of the safety of semaglutide even at higher doses.

These data suggest that for a patient with T2DM who is already taking insulin, the recommended titration of semaglutide is to start with 0.5 mg and titrate up to a 2-mg subcutaneous weekly dose and to then continue at that dose. As long as the 2-mg dose is tolerated, it will provide patients with the most HbA_1c control and lead to a reduction of their total daily insulin doses according to these results.

Strengths and Limitations

This study compared patient data at different points. This method did not require a second distinct control group, which would potentially introduce confounding factors, such as different baseline characteristics. Another strength is that documentation was available for all patients throughout the study so no one was lost to follow-up. This allowed comprehensive data collection and provided a stronger conclusion given the completeness of the data from baseline to follow-up.

Limitations include the retrospective design and small sample size. In addition, the study design did not allow for randomization. There is no documentation of adherence to medication regimen, which was difficult to determine due to the retrospective nature. Other changes to the patients’ medication regimen were not collected in aggregate and thus, it is possible the total daily insulin dose was impacted by other medication changes. There is also potential for inconsistent documentation of the patients’ true total daily insulin dose in the medical record, thus leading to inaccuracy of recorded data.

Conclusions

A small sample of veterans with T2DM had statistically significant reductions in total daily insulin dose when subcutaneous semaglutide was initiated, as well as after each dose increase. There was also a statistically significant reduction in HbA_1c levels from baseline even as patient insulin doses were reduced. These results support the current practice of using semaglutide to treat T2DM, suggesting it may be safe and effective at reducing HbA_1c levels as the dose is titrated up to 2 mg. There was no statistically significant change in the number of hypoglycemic events reported as semaglutide was titrated up. Thus, when semaglutide is increased to the maximum recommended dose of 2 mg for T2DM, patients may experience a reduction of their total daily dose of insulin and HbA_1c levels. These benefits may reduce the risk of insulin-related AEs while maintaining appropriate glycemic control.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a national health crisis affecting > 38 million people (11.6%) in the United States.¹ American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults are disproportionately affected, with a prevalence of 14.5%—the highest among all racial and ethnic groups.¹ Type 2 DM (T2DM) accounts for 90% to 95% of all DM cases and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality due to its association with cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, and other complications.²

Maintaining glycemic control is important for managing T2DM and preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications.³ The cornerstone of diabetes self-management has been patient self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) using finger-stick glucometers.⁴ However, SMBG provides measurements from a single point in time and requires frequent, painful, and inconvenient finger pricks, leading to decreased adherence.^5,6 These limitations negatively affect patient engagement and overall glycemic control.⁷

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) offer real-time, continuous glucose readings and trends.⁸ CGMs improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic episodes in patients who are insulin-dependent.^9,10 Flash glucose monitors, a type of CGM that requires scanning to obtain glucose readings, provide similar benefits.¹¹ Despite these demonstrated advantages, research has primarily focused on insulin-dependent populations, leaving a significant gap in understanding the effect of CGMs on patients with T2DM who are not insulin-dependent.¹²

Given the high prevalence of T2DM among AI/AN populations and the potential benefits of CGMs, this study sought to evaluate the effect of CGM use on glycemic control and other health metrics in patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM in an AI/AN population. This focus addresses a critical knowledge gap and may inform clinical practices and policies to improve diabetes management in this high-risk group.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted using deidentified electronic health records (EHRs) from 2019 to 2024 at a federally operated outpatient Indian Health Service (IHS) clinic serving an AI/AN population in the IHS Portland Area (Oregon, Washington, Idaho). The study protocol was reviewed and deemed exempt by institutional review boards at Washington State University and the Portland Area IHS.

Study Population

This study included patients diagnosed with non–insulin-dependent T2DM, had used a CGM for ≥ 1 year, and had hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) measurements within 4 months prior to CGM initiation (baseline) and within ± 4 months after 1 year of CGM use. For other health metrics, including blood pressure (BP), weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), this study required measurements within 6 months before CGM initiation and within 6 months after 1 year of CGM use. The baseline HbA_1c in the dataset ranged from 5.3% to > 14%.

Patients were excluded if they used insulin during the study period, had incomplete laboratory or clinical data for the required time frame, or had < 1 year of CGM use. The dataset did not include detailed information on oral DM medications; thus, we could not report or account for the type or number of oral hypoglycemic agents used by the patients. The IHS clinical applications coordinator compiled the dataset from the EHR, identifying patients who were prescribed and received a CGM at the clinic. All patients used the Abbott Freestyle Libre CGM, the only formulary CGM available at the clinic during the study period.

A 1-year follow-up endpoint was selected for several reasons: (1) to capture potential seasonal variations in diet and activity; (2) to align with the clinic’s standard practice of annual comprehensive diabetes evaluations; and (3) to allow sufficient time for patients to adapt to CGM use and reflect any meaningful changes in glycemic control.

All patients received standard DM care according to clinic protocols, which included DM self-management education and training. Patients met with the diabetes educator at least once, during which the educator emphasized making informed decisions using CGM data, such as adjusting dietary choices and physical activity levels to manage blood glucose concentrations effectively.

A total of 302 patients were initially identified. After applying exclusion criteria, 132 were excluded due to insulin use, and 77 were excluded due to incomplete HbA_1c data within the specified time frames (Figure 1). The final sample included 93 patients.

Measures

The primary outcome was the change in HbA_1c levels from baseline to 1 year after CGM initiation. Secondary outcomes included changes in weight, systolic and diastolic BP, LDL-C concentrations, and eGFR. For the primary outcome, HbA_1c values were collected within a grace period of ± 4 months from the baseline and 1-year time points. The laboratory’s upper reporting limit for HbA_1c was 14%; values reported as “> 14%” were recorded as 14.1% for data analysis, although the actual values could have been higher.

For secondary outcomes, data were included if measurements were obtained within ± 6 months of the baseline and 1-year time points. Patients who did not have measurements within these time frames for specific metrics were excluded from secondary outcome analysis but remained in the overall study if they met the criteria for HbA_1c and CGM use.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software version 4.4.2. Paired t tests were conducted to compare baseline and 1-year follow- up measurements for variables with parametric distributions. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for nonparametric data. A linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between baseline HbA_1c levels and the change in HbA_1c after 1 year of CGM use. Differences were considered significant at P < .05 set a priori. To guide future research, a posthoc power analysis was performed using Cohen’s d to estimate the required sample sizes for detecting significant effects, assuming a similar population.

Results

The study included 93 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 55 (13) years (range, 29-83 years). Of the participants, 56 were female (60%) and 37 were male (40%). All participants were identified as AI/AN and had non–insulin-dependent T2DM.

Primary Outcomes

A significant reduction in HbA_1c levels was observed after 1 year of CGM use. The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c was 9.5% (2.4%), which decreased to 7.6% (2.2%) at 1-year follow-up (Table 1). This difference represents a mean change of -1.86% (2.4%) (95% CI, -2.35 to -1.37; P < .001 [paired t test, -7.53]).

A linear regression model evaluated the relationship between baseline HbA_1c (predictor) and the change in HbA_1c after 1 year (outcome). The change in HbA_1c was calculated as the difference between 1-year follow-up and baseline values. The regression model revealed a significant negative association between baseline HbA_1c and the change in HbA_1c (Β = -0.576; P < .001), indicating that higher baseline HbA_1c values were associated with greater reductions in HbA_1c over the year. The regression equation was: Change in HbA_1c = 3.587 – 0.576 × Baseline HbA_1c

The regression coefficient for baseline HbA_1c was -0.576 (standard error, 0.083; t = -6.931; P < .001), indicating that for each 1% increase in baseline HbA_1c, the reduction of HbA_1c after 1 year increased by approximately 0.576% (Figure 2). The model explained 34.6% of the variance in HbA_1c change (R² = .345; adjusted R² = .338).

Secondary Outcomes

Systolic BP decreased by a mean (SD) -4.9 (17) mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.6 to -1.11; P = .01, paired t test). However, no significant change was observed for diastolic BP (P = .77, paired t test). Similarly, no significant changes were observed in weight, LDL-C concentrations, or eGFR after 1 year of CGM use. A posthoc power analysis indicated that the study was underpowered to detect smaller effect sizes in secondary outcomes. For example, sample size estimates indicated that detecting significant changes in weight and LDL-C concentrations would require sample sizes of 152 and 220 patients, respectively (Table 2).

Discussion

This study found a clinically significant reduction in HbA_1c levels after 1 year among AI/AN patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM who used CGMs. The mean HbA_1c decreased 1.9%, from 9.5% at baseline to 7.6% after 1 year. This reduction is not only statistically significant (P < .001), it is clinically meaningful—even a 1% decrease in HbA_1c is associated with substantial reductions in the risk of microvascular complications.³ The magnitude of the HbA_1c reduction observed suggests CGM use may be associated with improved glycemic control in this high-risk population. By achieving lower HbA_1c levels, patients may experience improved long-term health outcomes and a reduced burden of DM-related complications.

Changes in oral DM medications during the study period may have contributed to the observed improvements in HbA_1c levels. While the dataset lacked detailed information on types or dosages of oral hypoglycemic agents used, adjustments in medication regimens are common in DM management and could significantly affect glycemic control. The inability to account for these changes results in an inability to attribute the improvements in HbA_1c solely to CGM use. Future studies should collect comprehensive medication data to better isolate the effects of CGM use from other treatment modifications.

Another factor that may have contributed to the improved glycemic control is the DM self-management education and training patients received as part of standard care. Patients met with diabetes educators at least once and learned how to use the CGM device and interpret the data for self-management decisions. This education may have enhanced patient engagement and empowerment, enabling them to make informed choices about diet, physical activity, and medication adherence. Studies have shown that DM self-management education can significantly improve glycemic control and patient outcomes.¹³ By combining the CGM technology with targeted education, patients may have been better equipped to manage their condition, contributing to the observed reduction in HbA_1c levels. Future studies should consider synergistic effects of CGM use and DM education when evaluating interventions for glycemic control.

The significant reduction in HbA_1c indicates CGM use is associated with improved glycemic control in non–insulin-dependent T2DM. The linear regression analysis suggests patients with poorer glycemic control at baseline experienced greater reductions in HbA_1c over the course of 1 year. This finding aligns with previous studies that have shown greater HbA_1c reductions in patients with higher initial levels when using CGMs. Yaron et al reported similar findings: higher baseline HbA_1c levels predicted more substantial improvements with CGM use in patients with T2DM on insulin therapy.¹⁴

This study contributes to existing research by examining the association between CGM use and glycemic control in patients with non– insulin-dependent T2DM within an AI/AN population, a group that has been underreported in previous studies. Most prior research has focused on insulin-dependent patients or populations with different ethnic backgrounds.12 By focusing on patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM, this study highlights the broader applicability of CGMs beyond traditional use, showcasing their potential association with benefits in earlier stages of DM management. Targeting the AI/AN population addresses a critical knowledge gap, given the disproportionately high prevalence of T2DM and associated complications in this group. The findings of this study suggest integrating CGM technology into the standard care of AI/AN patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM may be associated with improved glycemic control and may help reduce health disparities.

The modest decrease in systolic BP observed in this study may indicate potential cardiovascular benefits associated with CGM use, possibly due to improved glycemic control and increased patient engagement in self-management. However, given the limited sample size and exclusion criteria, the study lacked sufficient power to detect significant associations between CGM use and other secondary outcomes such as BP, weight, LDL-C, and eGFR. Therefore, the significant finding with systolic BP should be interpreted with caution.

The lack of significant changes in secondary outcomes may be attributed to the study’s limited sample size and the relatively short duration for observing changes in these parameters. Larger studies are needed to assess the full impact of CGM on these variables. The required sample sizes for achieving adequate power in future studies were calculated, highlighting the utility of our study as a pilot, providing critical data for the design of larger, adequately powered studies.

Limitations

The retrospective design of this study limits causal inferences. Moreover, potential confounding variables were not controlled, such as changes in medication regimens (other than insulin use), dietary counseling, or physical activity. Additionally, we could not account for the type or number of oral DM medications prescribed to patients. The dataset included only information on insulin use, without detailed records of other antidiabetic medications. This limitation may have influenced the observed change in glycemic control, as variations in medication regimens could affect HbA_1c levels.

Because this study lacked a comparator group, the effect of CGM use cannot be definitively isolated from other factors (eg, medication changes, dietary modifications, or physical activity). Moreover, CGM devices can be costly and are not universally covered by all insurance or IHS programs, potentially limiting widespread implementation. Policy-level restrictions and patient-specific barriers may also hinder feasibility in other settings.

The small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Of the initial 302 patients, about 69% were excluded due to insulin use or incomplete laboratory data. A ± 4-month window was selected to balance data quality with real-world practices. Extending this window further (eg, ± 6 months) might have included more participants but risked diluting the 1-year endpoint consistency. The lack of statistical significance in secondary metrics may be due to insufficient power rather than the absence of an effect.

Exclusion of patients due to incomplete data may have introduced selection bias. However, patients were included in the overall analysis if they met the criteria for HbA_1c and CGM use, even if they lacked data for secondary outcomes. Additionally, the laboratory’s upper reporting limit for HbA_1c was 14%, with values above this reported as “> 14%.” For analysis, these were recorded as 14.1%, which may underestimate the true baseline HbA_1c levels and impact of the assessment of change. This occurred for 4 of the 93 patients included.

All patients used the Freestyle Libre CGM, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other CGM brands or models. Differences in device features, accuracy, scanning frequency, and user experience may influence outcomes, and results might differ with other CGM technologies. The dataset did not include patients’ scanning frequency because this metric was not consistently included in the EHRs.

Conclusions

This study found that CGM use was significantly associated with improved glycemic control in patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM within an AI/AN population, particularly among patients with higher baseline HbA_1c levels. The findings suggest that CGMs may be a valuable tool for managing T2DM beyond insulin-dependent populations.

Additional research with larger sample sizes, control groups, and extended follow-up periods is recommended to explore long-term benefits and impacts on other health metrics. The sample size estimates derived from this study serve as a valuable resource for researchers designing future studies aimed at addressing these gaps. Future research that expands on our findings by including larger, more diverse cohorts, accounting for medication use, and exploring different CGM technologies will enhance understanding and contribute to more effective diabetes management strategies for varied populations.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a national health crisis affecting > 38 million people (11.6%) in the United States.¹ American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults are disproportionately affected, with a prevalence of 14.5%—the highest among all racial and ethnic groups.¹ Type 2 DM (T2DM) accounts for 90% to 95% of all DM cases and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality due to its association with cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, and other complications.²

Maintaining glycemic control is important for managing T2DM and preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications.³ The cornerstone of diabetes self-management has been patient self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) using finger-stick glucometers.⁴ However, SMBG provides measurements from a single point in time and requires frequent, painful, and inconvenient finger pricks, leading to decreased adherence.^5,6 These limitations negatively affect patient engagement and overall glycemic control.⁷

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) offer real-time, continuous glucose readings and trends.⁸ CGMs improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic episodes in patients who are insulin-dependent.^9,10 Flash glucose monitors, a type of CGM that requires scanning to obtain glucose readings, provide similar benefits.¹¹ Despite these demonstrated advantages, research has primarily focused on insulin-dependent populations, leaving a significant gap in understanding the effect of CGMs on patients with T2DM who are not insulin-dependent.¹²

Given the high prevalence of T2DM among AI/AN populations and the potential benefits of CGMs, this study sought to evaluate the effect of CGM use on glycemic control and other health metrics in patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM in an AI/AN population. This focus addresses a critical knowledge gap and may inform clinical practices and policies to improve diabetes management in this high-risk group.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted using deidentified electronic health records (EHRs) from 2019 to 2024 at a federally operated outpatient Indian Health Service (IHS) clinic serving an AI/AN population in the IHS Portland Area (Oregon, Washington, Idaho). The study protocol was reviewed and deemed exempt by institutional review boards at Washington State University and the Portland Area IHS.

Study Population

This study included patients diagnosed with non–insulin-dependent T2DM, had used a CGM for ≥ 1 year, and had hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) measurements within 4 months prior to CGM initiation (baseline) and within ± 4 months after 1 year of CGM use. For other health metrics, including blood pressure (BP), weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), this study required measurements within 6 months before CGM initiation and within 6 months after 1 year of CGM use. The baseline HbA_1c in the dataset ranged from 5.3% to > 14%.

Patients were excluded if they used insulin during the study period, had incomplete laboratory or clinical data for the required time frame, or had < 1 year of CGM use. The dataset did not include detailed information on oral DM medications; thus, we could not report or account for the type or number of oral hypoglycemic agents used by the patients. The IHS clinical applications coordinator compiled the dataset from the EHR, identifying patients who were prescribed and received a CGM at the clinic. All patients used the Abbott Freestyle Libre CGM, the only formulary CGM available at the clinic during the study period.

A 1-year follow-up endpoint was selected for several reasons: (1) to capture potential seasonal variations in diet and activity; (2) to align with the clinic’s standard practice of annual comprehensive diabetes evaluations; and (3) to allow sufficient time for patients to adapt to CGM use and reflect any meaningful changes in glycemic control.

All patients received standard DM care according to clinic protocols, which included DM self-management education and training. Patients met with the diabetes educator at least once, during which the educator emphasized making informed decisions using CGM data, such as adjusting dietary choices and physical activity levels to manage blood glucose concentrations effectively.

A total of 302 patients were initially identified. After applying exclusion criteria, 132 were excluded due to insulin use, and 77 were excluded due to incomplete HbA_1c data within the specified time frames (Figure 1). The final sample included 93 patients.

Measures

The primary outcome was the change in HbA_1c levels from baseline to 1 year after CGM initiation. Secondary outcomes included changes in weight, systolic and diastolic BP, LDL-C concentrations, and eGFR. For the primary outcome, HbA_1c values were collected within a grace period of ± 4 months from the baseline and 1-year time points. The laboratory’s upper reporting limit for HbA_1c was 14%; values reported as “> 14%” were recorded as 14.1% for data analysis, although the actual values could have been higher.

For secondary outcomes, data were included if measurements were obtained within ± 6 months of the baseline and 1-year time points. Patients who did not have measurements within these time frames for specific metrics were excluded from secondary outcome analysis but remained in the overall study if they met the criteria for HbA_1c and CGM use.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software version 4.4.2. Paired t tests were conducted to compare baseline and 1-year follow- up measurements for variables with parametric distributions. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for nonparametric data. A linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between baseline HbA_1c levels and the change in HbA_1c after 1 year of CGM use. Differences were considered significant at P < .05 set a priori. To guide future research, a posthoc power analysis was performed using Cohen’s d to estimate the required sample sizes for detecting significant effects, assuming a similar population.

Results

The study included 93 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 55 (13) years (range, 29-83 years). Of the participants, 56 were female (60%) and 37 were male (40%). All participants were identified as AI/AN and had non–insulin-dependent T2DM.

Primary Outcomes

A significant reduction in HbA_1c levels was observed after 1 year of CGM use. The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c was 9.5% (2.4%), which decreased to 7.6% (2.2%) at 1-year follow-up (Table 1). This difference represents a mean change of -1.86% (2.4%) (95% CI, -2.35 to -1.37; P < .001 [paired t test, -7.53]).

A linear regression model evaluated the relationship between baseline HbA_1c (predictor) and the change in HbA_1c after 1 year (outcome). The change in HbA_1c was calculated as the difference between 1-year follow-up and baseline values. The regression model revealed a significant negative association between baseline HbA_1c and the change in HbA_1c (Β = -0.576; P < .001), indicating that higher baseline HbA_1c values were associated with greater reductions in HbA_1c over the year. The regression equation was: Change in HbA_1c = 3.587 – 0.576 × Baseline HbA_1c

The regression coefficient for baseline HbA_1c was -0.576 (standard error, 0.083; t = -6.931; P < .001), indicating that for each 1% increase in baseline HbA_1c, the reduction of HbA_1c after 1 year increased by approximately 0.576% (Figure 2). The model explained 34.6% of the variance in HbA_1c change (R² = .345; adjusted R² = .338).

Secondary Outcomes

Systolic BP decreased by a mean (SD) -4.9 (17) mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.6 to -1.11; P = .01, paired t test). However, no significant change was observed for diastolic BP (P = .77, paired t test). Similarly, no significant changes were observed in weight, LDL-C concentrations, or eGFR after 1 year of CGM use. A posthoc power analysis indicated that the study was underpowered to detect smaller effect sizes in secondary outcomes. For example, sample size estimates indicated that detecting significant changes in weight and LDL-C concentrations would require sample sizes of 152 and 220 patients, respectively (Table 2).

Discussion

This study found a clinically significant reduction in HbA_1c levels after 1 year among AI/AN patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM who used CGMs. The mean HbA_1c decreased 1.9%, from 9.5% at baseline to 7.6% after 1 year. This reduction is not only statistically significant (P < .001), it is clinically meaningful—even a 1% decrease in HbA_1c is associated with substantial reductions in the risk of microvascular complications.³ The magnitude of the HbA_1c reduction observed suggests CGM use may be associated with improved glycemic control in this high-risk population. By achieving lower HbA_1c levels, patients may experience improved long-term health outcomes and a reduced burden of DM-related complications.

Changes in oral DM medications during the study period may have contributed to the observed improvements in HbA_1c levels. While the dataset lacked detailed information on types or dosages of oral hypoglycemic agents used, adjustments in medication regimens are common in DM management and could significantly affect glycemic control. The inability to account for these changes results in an inability to attribute the improvements in HbA_1c solely to CGM use. Future studies should collect comprehensive medication data to better isolate the effects of CGM use from other treatment modifications.

Another factor that may have contributed to the improved glycemic control is the DM self-management education and training patients received as part of standard care. Patients met with diabetes educators at least once and learned how to use the CGM device and interpret the data for self-management decisions. This education may have enhanced patient engagement and empowerment, enabling them to make informed choices about diet, physical activity, and medication adherence. Studies have shown that DM self-management education can significantly improve glycemic control and patient outcomes.¹³ By combining the CGM technology with targeted education, patients may have been better equipped to manage their condition, contributing to the observed reduction in HbA_1c levels. Future studies should consider synergistic effects of CGM use and DM education when evaluating interventions for glycemic control.

The significant reduction in HbA_1c indicates CGM use is associated with improved glycemic control in non–insulin-dependent T2DM. The linear regression analysis suggests patients with poorer glycemic control at baseline experienced greater reductions in HbA_1c over the course of 1 year. This finding aligns with previous studies that have shown greater HbA_1c reductions in patients with higher initial levels when using CGMs. Yaron et al reported similar findings: higher baseline HbA_1c levels predicted more substantial improvements with CGM use in patients with T2DM on insulin therapy.¹⁴

This study contributes to existing research by examining the association between CGM use and glycemic control in patients with non– insulin-dependent T2DM within an AI/AN population, a group that has been underreported in previous studies. Most prior research has focused on insulin-dependent patients or populations with different ethnic backgrounds.12 By focusing on patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM, this study highlights the broader applicability of CGMs beyond traditional use, showcasing their potential association with benefits in earlier stages of DM management. Targeting the AI/AN population addresses a critical knowledge gap, given the disproportionately high prevalence of T2DM and associated complications in this group. The findings of this study suggest integrating CGM technology into the standard care of AI/AN patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM may be associated with improved glycemic control and may help reduce health disparities.

The modest decrease in systolic BP observed in this study may indicate potential cardiovascular benefits associated with CGM use, possibly due to improved glycemic control and increased patient engagement in self-management. However, given the limited sample size and exclusion criteria, the study lacked sufficient power to detect significant associations between CGM use and other secondary outcomes such as BP, weight, LDL-C, and eGFR. Therefore, the significant finding with systolic BP should be interpreted with caution.

The lack of significant changes in secondary outcomes may be attributed to the study’s limited sample size and the relatively short duration for observing changes in these parameters. Larger studies are needed to assess the full impact of CGM on these variables. The required sample sizes for achieving adequate power in future studies were calculated, highlighting the utility of our study as a pilot, providing critical data for the design of larger, adequately powered studies.

Limitations

The retrospective design of this study limits causal inferences. Moreover, potential confounding variables were not controlled, such as changes in medication regimens (other than insulin use), dietary counseling, or physical activity. Additionally, we could not account for the type or number of oral DM medications prescribed to patients. The dataset included only information on insulin use, without detailed records of other antidiabetic medications. This limitation may have influenced the observed change in glycemic control, as variations in medication regimens could affect HbA_1c levels.

Because this study lacked a comparator group, the effect of CGM use cannot be definitively isolated from other factors (eg, medication changes, dietary modifications, or physical activity). Moreover, CGM devices can be costly and are not universally covered by all insurance or IHS programs, potentially limiting widespread implementation. Policy-level restrictions and patient-specific barriers may also hinder feasibility in other settings.

The small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Of the initial 302 patients, about 69% were excluded due to insulin use or incomplete laboratory data. A ± 4-month window was selected to balance data quality with real-world practices. Extending this window further (eg, ± 6 months) might have included more participants but risked diluting the 1-year endpoint consistency. The lack of statistical significance in secondary metrics may be due to insufficient power rather than the absence of an effect.

Exclusion of patients due to incomplete data may have introduced selection bias. However, patients were included in the overall analysis if they met the criteria for HbA_1c and CGM use, even if they lacked data for secondary outcomes. Additionally, the laboratory’s upper reporting limit for HbA_1c was 14%, with values above this reported as “> 14%.” For analysis, these were recorded as 14.1%, which may underestimate the true baseline HbA_1c levels and impact of the assessment of change. This occurred for 4 of the 93 patients included.

All patients used the Freestyle Libre CGM, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other CGM brands or models. Differences in device features, accuracy, scanning frequency, and user experience may influence outcomes, and results might differ with other CGM technologies. The dataset did not include patients’ scanning frequency because this metric was not consistently included in the EHRs.

Conclusions

This study found that CGM use was significantly associated with improved glycemic control in patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM within an AI/AN population, particularly among patients with higher baseline HbA_1c levels. The findings suggest that CGMs may be a valuable tool for managing T2DM beyond insulin-dependent populations.

Additional research with larger sample sizes, control groups, and extended follow-up periods is recommended to explore long-term benefits and impacts on other health metrics. The sample size estimates derived from this study serve as a valuable resource for researchers designing future studies aimed at addressing these gaps. Future research that expands on our findings by including larger, more diverse cohorts, accounting for medication use, and exploring different CGM technologies will enhance understanding and contribute to more effective diabetes management strategies for varied populations.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a national health crisis affecting > 38 million people (11.6%) in the United States.¹ American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults are disproportionately affected, with a prevalence of 14.5%—the highest among all racial and ethnic groups.¹ Type 2 DM (T2DM) accounts for 90% to 95% of all DM cases and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality due to its association with cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, and other complications.²

Maintaining glycemic control is important for managing T2DM and preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications.³ The cornerstone of diabetes self-management has been patient self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) using finger-stick glucometers.⁴ However, SMBG provides measurements from a single point in time and requires frequent, painful, and inconvenient finger pricks, leading to decreased adherence.^5,6 These limitations negatively affect patient engagement and overall glycemic control.⁷

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) offer real-time, continuous glucose readings and trends.⁸ CGMs improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemic episodes in patients who are insulin-dependent.^9,10 Flash glucose monitors, a type of CGM that requires scanning to obtain glucose readings, provide similar benefits.¹¹ Despite these demonstrated advantages, research has primarily focused on insulin-dependent populations, leaving a significant gap in understanding the effect of CGMs on patients with T2DM who are not insulin-dependent.¹²

Given the high prevalence of T2DM among AI/AN populations and the potential benefits of CGMs, this study sought to evaluate the effect of CGM use on glycemic control and other health metrics in patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM in an AI/AN population. This focus addresses a critical knowledge gap and may inform clinical practices and policies to improve diabetes management in this high-risk group.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted using deidentified electronic health records (EHRs) from 2019 to 2024 at a federally operated outpatient Indian Health Service (IHS) clinic serving an AI/AN population in the IHS Portland Area (Oregon, Washington, Idaho). The study protocol was reviewed and deemed exempt by institutional review boards at Washington State University and the Portland Area IHS.

Study Population

This study included patients diagnosed with non–insulin-dependent T2DM, had used a CGM for ≥ 1 year, and had hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) measurements within 4 months prior to CGM initiation (baseline) and within ± 4 months after 1 year of CGM use. For other health metrics, including blood pressure (BP), weight, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), this study required measurements within 6 months before CGM initiation and within 6 months after 1 year of CGM use. The baseline HbA_1c in the dataset ranged from 5.3% to > 14%.

Patients were excluded if they used insulin during the study period, had incomplete laboratory or clinical data for the required time frame, or had < 1 year of CGM use. The dataset did not include detailed information on oral DM medications; thus, we could not report or account for the type or number of oral hypoglycemic agents used by the patients. The IHS clinical applications coordinator compiled the dataset from the EHR, identifying patients who were prescribed and received a CGM at the clinic. All patients used the Abbott Freestyle Libre CGM, the only formulary CGM available at the clinic during the study period.

A 1-year follow-up endpoint was selected for several reasons: (1) to capture potential seasonal variations in diet and activity; (2) to align with the clinic’s standard practice of annual comprehensive diabetes evaluations; and (3) to allow sufficient time for patients to adapt to CGM use and reflect any meaningful changes in glycemic control.

All patients received standard DM care according to clinic protocols, which included DM self-management education and training. Patients met with the diabetes educator at least once, during which the educator emphasized making informed decisions using CGM data, such as adjusting dietary choices and physical activity levels to manage blood glucose concentrations effectively.

A total of 302 patients were initially identified. After applying exclusion criteria, 132 were excluded due to insulin use, and 77 were excluded due to incomplete HbA_1c data within the specified time frames (Figure 1). The final sample included 93 patients.

Measures

The primary outcome was the change in HbA_1c levels from baseline to 1 year after CGM initiation. Secondary outcomes included changes in weight, systolic and diastolic BP, LDL-C concentrations, and eGFR. For the primary outcome, HbA_1c values were collected within a grace period of ± 4 months from the baseline and 1-year time points. The laboratory’s upper reporting limit for HbA_1c was 14%; values reported as “> 14%” were recorded as 14.1% for data analysis, although the actual values could have been higher.

For secondary outcomes, data were included if measurements were obtained within ± 6 months of the baseline and 1-year time points. Patients who did not have measurements within these time frames for specific metrics were excluded from secondary outcome analysis but remained in the overall study if they met the criteria for HbA_1c and CGM use.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software version 4.4.2. Paired t tests were conducted to compare baseline and 1-year follow- up measurements for variables with parametric distributions. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for nonparametric data. A linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between baseline HbA_1c levels and the change in HbA_1c after 1 year of CGM use. Differences were considered significant at P < .05 set a priori. To guide future research, a posthoc power analysis was performed using Cohen’s d to estimate the required sample sizes for detecting significant effects, assuming a similar population.

Results

The study included 93 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 55 (13) years (range, 29-83 years). Of the participants, 56 were female (60%) and 37 were male (40%). All participants were identified as AI/AN and had non–insulin-dependent T2DM.

Primary Outcomes

A significant reduction in HbA_1c levels was observed after 1 year of CGM use. The mean (SD) baseline HbA1c was 9.5% (2.4%), which decreased to 7.6% (2.2%) at 1-year follow-up (Table 1). This difference represents a mean change of -1.86% (2.4%) (95% CI, -2.35 to -1.37; P < .001 [paired t test, -7.53]).

A linear regression model evaluated the relationship between baseline HbA_1c (predictor) and the change in HbA_1c after 1 year (outcome). The change in HbA_1c was calculated as the difference between 1-year follow-up and baseline values. The regression model revealed a significant negative association between baseline HbA_1c and the change in HbA_1c (Β = -0.576; P < .001), indicating that higher baseline HbA_1c values were associated with greater reductions in HbA_1c over the year. The regression equation was: Change in HbA_1c = 3.587 – 0.576 × Baseline HbA_1c

The regression coefficient for baseline HbA_1c was -0.576 (standard error, 0.083; t = -6.931; P < .001), indicating that for each 1% increase in baseline HbA_1c, the reduction of HbA_1c after 1 year increased by approximately 0.576% (Figure 2). The model explained 34.6% of the variance in HbA_1c change (R² = .345; adjusted R² = .338).

Secondary Outcomes

Systolic BP decreased by a mean (SD) -4.9 (17) mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.6 to -1.11; P = .01, paired t test). However, no significant change was observed for diastolic BP (P = .77, paired t test). Similarly, no significant changes were observed in weight, LDL-C concentrations, or eGFR after 1 year of CGM use. A posthoc power analysis indicated that the study was underpowered to detect smaller effect sizes in secondary outcomes. For example, sample size estimates indicated that detecting significant changes in weight and LDL-C concentrations would require sample sizes of 152 and 220 patients, respectively (Table 2).

Discussion

This study found a clinically significant reduction in HbA_1c levels after 1 year among AI/AN patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM who used CGMs. The mean HbA_1c decreased 1.9%, from 9.5% at baseline to 7.6% after 1 year. This reduction is not only statistically significant (P < .001), it is clinically meaningful—even a 1% decrease in HbA_1c is associated with substantial reductions in the risk of microvascular complications.³ The magnitude of the HbA_1c reduction observed suggests CGM use may be associated with improved glycemic control in this high-risk population. By achieving lower HbA_1c levels, patients may experience improved long-term health outcomes and a reduced burden of DM-related complications.

Changes in oral DM medications during the study period may have contributed to the observed improvements in HbA_1c levels. While the dataset lacked detailed information on types or dosages of oral hypoglycemic agents used, adjustments in medication regimens are common in DM management and could significantly affect glycemic control. The inability to account for these changes results in an inability to attribute the improvements in HbA_1c solely to CGM use. Future studies should collect comprehensive medication data to better isolate the effects of CGM use from other treatment modifications.

Another factor that may have contributed to the improved glycemic control is the DM self-management education and training patients received as part of standard care. Patients met with diabetes educators at least once and learned how to use the CGM device and interpret the data for self-management decisions. This education may have enhanced patient engagement and empowerment, enabling them to make informed choices about diet, physical activity, and medication adherence. Studies have shown that DM self-management education can significantly improve glycemic control and patient outcomes.¹³ By combining the CGM technology with targeted education, patients may have been better equipped to manage their condition, contributing to the observed reduction in HbA_1c levels. Future studies should consider synergistic effects of CGM use and DM education when evaluating interventions for glycemic control.

The significant reduction in HbA_1c indicates CGM use is associated with improved glycemic control in non–insulin-dependent T2DM. The linear regression analysis suggests patients with poorer glycemic control at baseline experienced greater reductions in HbA_1c over the course of 1 year. This finding aligns with previous studies that have shown greater HbA_1c reductions in patients with higher initial levels when using CGMs. Yaron et al reported similar findings: higher baseline HbA_1c levels predicted more substantial improvements with CGM use in patients with T2DM on insulin therapy.¹⁴

This study contributes to existing research by examining the association between CGM use and glycemic control in patients with non– insulin-dependent T2DM within an AI/AN population, a group that has been underreported in previous studies. Most prior research has focused on insulin-dependent patients or populations with different ethnic backgrounds.12 By focusing on patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM, this study highlights the broader applicability of CGMs beyond traditional use, showcasing their potential association with benefits in earlier stages of DM management. Targeting the AI/AN population addresses a critical knowledge gap, given the disproportionately high prevalence of T2DM and associated complications in this group. The findings of this study suggest integrating CGM technology into the standard care of AI/AN patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM may be associated with improved glycemic control and may help reduce health disparities.

The modest decrease in systolic BP observed in this study may indicate potential cardiovascular benefits associated with CGM use, possibly due to improved glycemic control and increased patient engagement in self-management. However, given the limited sample size and exclusion criteria, the study lacked sufficient power to detect significant associations between CGM use and other secondary outcomes such as BP, weight, LDL-C, and eGFR. Therefore, the significant finding with systolic BP should be interpreted with caution.

The lack of significant changes in secondary outcomes may be attributed to the study’s limited sample size and the relatively short duration for observing changes in these parameters. Larger studies are needed to assess the full impact of CGM on these variables. The required sample sizes for achieving adequate power in future studies were calculated, highlighting the utility of our study as a pilot, providing critical data for the design of larger, adequately powered studies.

Limitations

The retrospective design of this study limits causal inferences. Moreover, potential confounding variables were not controlled, such as changes in medication regimens (other than insulin use), dietary counseling, or physical activity. Additionally, we could not account for the type or number of oral DM medications prescribed to patients. The dataset included only information on insulin use, without detailed records of other antidiabetic medications. This limitation may have influenced the observed change in glycemic control, as variations in medication regimens could affect HbA_1c levels.

Because this study lacked a comparator group, the effect of CGM use cannot be definitively isolated from other factors (eg, medication changes, dietary modifications, or physical activity). Moreover, CGM devices can be costly and are not universally covered by all insurance or IHS programs, potentially limiting widespread implementation. Policy-level restrictions and patient-specific barriers may also hinder feasibility in other settings.

The small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. Of the initial 302 patients, about 69% were excluded due to insulin use or incomplete laboratory data. A ± 4-month window was selected to balance data quality with real-world practices. Extending this window further (eg, ± 6 months) might have included more participants but risked diluting the 1-year endpoint consistency. The lack of statistical significance in secondary metrics may be due to insufficient power rather than the absence of an effect.

Exclusion of patients due to incomplete data may have introduced selection bias. However, patients were included in the overall analysis if they met the criteria for HbA_1c and CGM use, even if they lacked data for secondary outcomes. Additionally, the laboratory’s upper reporting limit for HbA_1c was 14%, with values above this reported as “> 14%.” For analysis, these were recorded as 14.1%, which may underestimate the true baseline HbA_1c levels and impact of the assessment of change. This occurred for 4 of the 93 patients included.

All patients used the Freestyle Libre CGM, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other CGM brands or models. Differences in device features, accuracy, scanning frequency, and user experience may influence outcomes, and results might differ with other CGM technologies. The dataset did not include patients’ scanning frequency because this metric was not consistently included in the EHRs.

Conclusions

This study found that CGM use was significantly associated with improved glycemic control in patients with non–insulin-dependent T2DM within an AI/AN population, particularly among patients with higher baseline HbA_1c levels. The findings suggest that CGMs may be a valuable tool for managing T2DM beyond insulin-dependent populations.

Additional research with larger sample sizes, control groups, and extended follow-up periods is recommended to explore long-term benefits and impacts on other health metrics. The sample size estimates derived from this study serve as a valuable resource for researchers designing future studies aimed at addressing these gaps. Future research that expands on our findings by including larger, more diverse cohorts, accounting for medication use, and exploring different CGM technologies will enhance understanding and contribute to more effective diabetes management strategies for varied populations.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among women in the United States.¹ Most CVD is due to the buildup of plaque (ie, cholesterol, proteins, calcium, and inflammatory cells) in artery walls.² The plaque may lead to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which includes coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, and aortic atherosclerotic disease.^2,3 Control and reduction of ASCVD risk factors, including high cholesterol levels, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle, can contribute to a reduction in ASCVD morbidity and mortality.² People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of ASCVD.^4,5

The prescribing of statins (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzmye A reductase inhibitors) is the cornerstone of lipid-lowering therapy and cardiovascular risk reduction for primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.⁶ The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend moderate- to high-intensity statins for primary prevention in patients with T2DM and high-intensity statins for secondary prevention in those with or without diabetes when not contraindicated.^4,5,7 Despite eligibility according to guideline recommendations, research predominantly shows that women are less likely to receive statin therapy; however, this trend is improving. ^[6,8-11] To explain the sex differences in statin use, Nanna et al found that there is a combination of women being offered statin therapy less frequently, declining therapy more frequently, and discontinuing treatment more frequently.¹¹ One possibility for discontinuing treatment could be statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), which occur in about 10% of patients.¹² The incidence of adverse effects (AEs) may be related to the way statins are metabolized.

Pharmacogenomic testing is free for veterans through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) PHASER program, which offers information and recommendations for a panel of 11 gene variants. The panel includes genes related to common medication classes such as anticoagulants, antiplatelets, proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, antidepressants, and statins. The VA PHASER panel includes the solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) gene, which is predominantly expressed in the liver and facilitates the hepatic uptake of most statins.^13,14 A reduced function of SLCO1B1 can lead to higher statin levels, resulting in increased concentrations that may potentially cause SAMS.^13,14 Some alleles associated with reduced function include SLCO1B1*5, *15, *23, *31, and *46 to *49, whereas others are associated with increased function, such as SLCO1B1 *14 and *20 (Appendix).¹⁵ Supporting evidence shows the SLCO1B1*5 nucleotide polymorphism increases plasma levels of simvastatin and atorvastatin, affecting effectiveness or toxicity. ¹³ Females tend to have a lower body weight and higher percentage of body fat compared with males, which might lead to higher concentrations of lipophilic drugs, including atorvastatin and simvastatin, which may be exacerbated by decreased function of SLCO1B1*5.¹⁵ With pharmacogenomic testing, therapeutic recommendations can be made to improve the overall safety and efficacy of statins, thus improving adherence using a patient-specific approach.^14,15

Methods

Carl Vinson VA Medical Center (CVVAMC) serves about 42,000 veterans in Central and South Georgia, of which about 15% are female. Of the female veterans enrolled in care, 63% identify as Black, 27% White, and 1.5% as Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. The 2020 Veterans Chartbook report showed that female veterans and minority racial and ethnic groups had worse access to health care and higher mortality rates than their male and non-Hispanic White counterparts.¹⁶

The Primary Care Equity Dashboard (PCED) was developed to engage the VA health care workforce in the process of identifying and addressing inequities in local patient populations.¹⁷ Using electronic quality measure data, the PCED provides Veterans Integrated Service Network-level and facility-level performance on several metrics.¹⁸ The PCED had not been previously used at the CVVAMC, and few publications or quality improvement projects regarding its use have been reported by the VA Office of Health Equity. PCED helped identify disparities when comparing female to male patients in the prescribing of statin therapy for patients with CVD and statin therapy for patients with T2DM.

VA PHASER pharmacogenomic analyses provided an opportunity to expand this quality improvement project. Sanford Health and the VA collaborated on the PHASER program to offer free genetic testing for veterans. The program launched in 2019 and expanded to various VA sites, including CVVAMC in March 2023. This program has been extended to December 31, 2025.

The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to increase statin prescribing among female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD to reduce cardiovascular risk. Secondary outcomes included increased pharmacogenomic testing and the assessment of pharmacogenomic results related to statin therapy. This project was approved by the CVVAMC Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. The PCED was used to identify female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD without an active prescription for a statin between July and October 2023. A review of Computerized Patient Record System patient charts was completed to screen for prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Veterans were included if they were assigned female at birth, were enrolled in care at CVVAMC, and had a diagnosis of T2DM or CVD (history of myocardial infarction, coronary bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or other revascularization in any setting).

Veterans were excluded if they were currently pregnant, trying to conceive, breastfeeding, had a T1DM diagnosis, had previously documented hypersensitivity to a statin, active liver failure or decompensated cirrhosis, previously documented statin-associated rhabdomyolysis or autoimmune myopathy, an active prescription for a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, or previously documented statin intolerance (defined as the inability to tolerate ≥ 3 statins, with ≥ 1 prescribed at low intensity or alternate-day dosing). The female veterans were compared to 2 comparators: the facility's male veterans and the VA national average, identified via the PCED.

Once a veteran was screened, they were telephoned between October 2023 and February 2024 and provided education on statin use and pharmacogenomic testing using a standardized note template. An order was placed for participants who provided verbal consent for pharmacogenomic testing. Those who agreed to statin initiation were referred to a clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who contacted them at a later date to prescribe a statin following the recommendations of the 2019 ACC/AHA and 2023 ADA guidelines and pharmacogenomic testing, if applicable.^4,5,7 Appropriate monitoring and follow-up occurred at the discretion of each CPP. Data collection included: age, race, diagnoses (T2DM, CVD, or both), baseline lipid panel (total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein), hepatic function, name and dose of statin, reasons for declining statin therapy, and pharmacogenomic testing results related to SLCO1B1.

Results

At baseline in July 2023, 77.8% of female veterans with T2DM were prescribed a statin, which exceeded the national VA average (77.0%), but was below the rate for male veterans (78.7%) in the facility comparator group.17 Additionally, 82.2% of females with CVD were prescribed a statin, which was below the national VA average of 86.0% and the 84.9% of male veterans in the facility comparator group.17 The PCED identified 189 female veterans from July 2023 to October 2023 who may benefit from statin therapy. Thirty-three females met the exclusion criteria. Of the 156 included veterans, 129 (82.7%) were successfully contacted and 27 (17.3%) could not be reached by telephone after 3 attempts (Figure 1). The 129 female veterans contacted had a mean age of 59 years and the majority were Black (82.9%) (Table 1).

Primary Outcomes

Of the 129 contacted veterans, 31 (24.0%) had a non-VA statin prescription, 13 (10.1%) had an active VA statin prescription, and 85 (65.9%) did not have a statin prescription, despite being eligible. Statin adherence was confirmed with participants, and the medication list was updated accordingly.

Of the 85 veterans with no active statin therapy, 37 (43.5%) accepted a new statin prescription and 48 (56.5%) declined. There were various reasons provided for declining statin therapy: 17 participants (35.4%) declined due to concern for AEs (Table 2).

From July 2023 to March 2024, the percentage of female veterans with active statin therapy with T2DM increased from 77.8% to 79.0%. For those with active statin therapy with CVD, usage increased from 82.2% to 90.2%, which exceeded the national VA average and facility male comparator group (Figures 2 and 3).¹⁷

Secondary Outcomes

Seventy-one of 129 veterans (55.0%) gave verbal consent, and 47 (66.2%) completed the pharmacogenomic testing; 58 (45.0%) declined. Five veterans (10.6%) had a known SLCO1B1 allele variant present. One veteran required a change in statin therapy based on the results (eAppendix).

Discussion

This project aimed to increase statin prescribing among female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD to reduce cardiovascular risk and increase pharmacogenomic testing using the PCED and care managed by CPPs. The results of this quality improvement project illustrated that both metrics have improved at CVVAMC as a result of the intervention. The results in both metrics now exceed the PCED national VA average, and the CVD metric also exceeds that of the facility male comparator group. While there was only a 1.2% increase from July 2023 to March 2024 for patients with T2DM, there was an 8.0% increase for patients with CVD. Despite standardized education on statin use, more veterans declined therapy than accepted it, mostly due to concern for AEs. Recording the reasons for declining statin therapy offered valuable insight that can be used in additional discussions with veterans and clinicians.

Pharmacogenomics gives clinicians the unique opportunity to take a proactive approach to better predict drug responses, potentially allowing for less trial and error with medications, fewer AEs, greater trust in the clinician, and improved medication adherence. The CPPs incorporated pharmacogenomic testing into their practice, which led to identifying 5 SLCO1B1 gene abnormalities. The PCED served as a powerful tool for advancing equity-focused quality improvement initiatives on a local level and was crucial in prioritizing the detection of veterans potentially receiving suboptimal care.

Limitations

The nature of “cold calls” made it challenging to establish contact for inclusion in this study. An alternative to increase engagement could have been scheduled phone or face-to-face visits. While the use of the PCED was crucial, data did not account for statins listed in the non-VA medication list. All 31 patients with statins prescribed outside the VA had a start date added to provide the most accurate representation of the data moving forward.

Another limitation in this project was its small sample size and population. CVVAMC serves about 6200 female veterans, with roughly 63% identifying as Black. The preponderance of Black individuals (83%) in this project is typical for the female patient population at CVVAMC but may not reflect the demographics of other populations. Other limitations to this project consisted of scheduling conflicts. Appointments for laboratory draws at community-based outpatient clinics were subject to availability, which resulted in some delay in completion of pharmacogenomic testing.

Conclusions

CPPs can help reduce inequity in health care delivery. Increased incorporation of the PCED into regular practice within the VA is recommended to continue addressing sex disparities in statin use, diabetes control, blood pressure management, cancer screenings, and vaccination needs. CVVAMC plans to expand its use through another quality improvement project focused on reducing sex disparities in blood pressure management. Improving educational resources made available to veterans on the importance of statin therapy and potential to mitigate AEs through use of the VA PHASER program also would be helpful. This project successfully improved CVVAMC metrics for female veterans appropriately prescribed statin therapy and increased access to pharmacogenomic testing. Most importantly, it helped close the sex-based gap in CVD risk reduction care.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among women in the United States.¹ Most CVD is due to the buildup of plaque (ie, cholesterol, proteins, calcium, and inflammatory cells) in artery walls.² The plaque may lead to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which includes coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, and aortic atherosclerotic disease.^2,3 Control and reduction of ASCVD risk factors, including high cholesterol levels, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle, can contribute to a reduction in ASCVD morbidity and mortality.² People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of ASCVD.^4,5

The prescribing of statins (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzmye A reductase inhibitors) is the cornerstone of lipid-lowering therapy and cardiovascular risk reduction for primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.⁶ The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend moderate- to high-intensity statins for primary prevention in patients with T2DM and high-intensity statins for secondary prevention in those with or without diabetes when not contraindicated.^4,5,7 Despite eligibility according to guideline recommendations, research predominantly shows that women are less likely to receive statin therapy; however, this trend is improving. ^[6,8-11] To explain the sex differences in statin use, Nanna et al found that there is a combination of women being offered statin therapy less frequently, declining therapy more frequently, and discontinuing treatment more frequently.¹¹ One possibility for discontinuing treatment could be statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), which occur in about 10% of patients.¹² The incidence of adverse effects (AEs) may be related to the way statins are metabolized.

Pharmacogenomic testing is free for veterans through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) PHASER program, which offers information and recommendations for a panel of 11 gene variants. The panel includes genes related to common medication classes such as anticoagulants, antiplatelets, proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, antidepressants, and statins. The VA PHASER panel includes the solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) gene, which is predominantly expressed in the liver and facilitates the hepatic uptake of most statins.^13,14 A reduced function of SLCO1B1 can lead to higher statin levels, resulting in increased concentrations that may potentially cause SAMS.^13,14 Some alleles associated with reduced function include SLCO1B1*5, *15, *23, *31, and *46 to *49, whereas others are associated with increased function, such as SLCO1B1 *14 and *20 (Appendix).¹⁵ Supporting evidence shows the SLCO1B1*5 nucleotide polymorphism increases plasma levels of simvastatin and atorvastatin, affecting effectiveness or toxicity. ¹³ Females tend to have a lower body weight and higher percentage of body fat compared with males, which might lead to higher concentrations of lipophilic drugs, including atorvastatin and simvastatin, which may be exacerbated by decreased function of SLCO1B1*5.¹⁵ With pharmacogenomic testing, therapeutic recommendations can be made to improve the overall safety and efficacy of statins, thus improving adherence using a patient-specific approach.^14,15

Methods

Carl Vinson VA Medical Center (CVVAMC) serves about 42,000 veterans in Central and South Georgia, of which about 15% are female. Of the female veterans enrolled in care, 63% identify as Black, 27% White, and 1.5% as Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. The 2020 Veterans Chartbook report showed that female veterans and minority racial and ethnic groups had worse access to health care and higher mortality rates than their male and non-Hispanic White counterparts.¹⁶

The Primary Care Equity Dashboard (PCED) was developed to engage the VA health care workforce in the process of identifying and addressing inequities in local patient populations.¹⁷ Using electronic quality measure data, the PCED provides Veterans Integrated Service Network-level and facility-level performance on several metrics.¹⁸ The PCED had not been previously used at the CVVAMC, and few publications or quality improvement projects regarding its use have been reported by the VA Office of Health Equity. PCED helped identify disparities when comparing female to male patients in the prescribing of statin therapy for patients with CVD and statin therapy for patients with T2DM.

VA PHASER pharmacogenomic analyses provided an opportunity to expand this quality improvement project. Sanford Health and the VA collaborated on the PHASER program to offer free genetic testing for veterans. The program launched in 2019 and expanded to various VA sites, including CVVAMC in March 2023. This program has been extended to December 31, 2025.

The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to increase statin prescribing among female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD to reduce cardiovascular risk. Secondary outcomes included increased pharmacogenomic testing and the assessment of pharmacogenomic results related to statin therapy. This project was approved by the CVVAMC Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. The PCED was used to identify female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD without an active prescription for a statin between July and October 2023. A review of Computerized Patient Record System patient charts was completed to screen for prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Veterans were included if they were assigned female at birth, were enrolled in care at CVVAMC, and had a diagnosis of T2DM or CVD (history of myocardial infarction, coronary bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or other revascularization in any setting).

Veterans were excluded if they were currently pregnant, trying to conceive, breastfeeding, had a T1DM diagnosis, had previously documented hypersensitivity to a statin, active liver failure or decompensated cirrhosis, previously documented statin-associated rhabdomyolysis or autoimmune myopathy, an active prescription for a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, or previously documented statin intolerance (defined as the inability to tolerate ≥ 3 statins, with ≥ 1 prescribed at low intensity or alternate-day dosing). The female veterans were compared to 2 comparators: the facility's male veterans and the VA national average, identified via the PCED.

Once a veteran was screened, they were telephoned between October 2023 and February 2024 and provided education on statin use and pharmacogenomic testing using a standardized note template. An order was placed for participants who provided verbal consent for pharmacogenomic testing. Those who agreed to statin initiation were referred to a clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who contacted them at a later date to prescribe a statin following the recommendations of the 2019 ACC/AHA and 2023 ADA guidelines and pharmacogenomic testing, if applicable.^4,5,7 Appropriate monitoring and follow-up occurred at the discretion of each CPP. Data collection included: age, race, diagnoses (T2DM, CVD, or both), baseline lipid panel (total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein), hepatic function, name and dose of statin, reasons for declining statin therapy, and pharmacogenomic testing results related to SLCO1B1.

Results

At baseline in July 2023, 77.8% of female veterans with T2DM were prescribed a statin, which exceeded the national VA average (77.0%), but was below the rate for male veterans (78.7%) in the facility comparator group.17 Additionally, 82.2% of females with CVD were prescribed a statin, which was below the national VA average of 86.0% and the 84.9% of male veterans in the facility comparator group.17 The PCED identified 189 female veterans from July 2023 to October 2023 who may benefit from statin therapy. Thirty-three females met the exclusion criteria. Of the 156 included veterans, 129 (82.7%) were successfully contacted and 27 (17.3%) could not be reached by telephone after 3 attempts (Figure 1). The 129 female veterans contacted had a mean age of 59 years and the majority were Black (82.9%) (Table 1).

Primary Outcomes

Of the 129 contacted veterans, 31 (24.0%) had a non-VA statin prescription, 13 (10.1%) had an active VA statin prescription, and 85 (65.9%) did not have a statin prescription, despite being eligible. Statin adherence was confirmed with participants, and the medication list was updated accordingly.

Of the 85 veterans with no active statin therapy, 37 (43.5%) accepted a new statin prescription and 48 (56.5%) declined. There were various reasons provided for declining statin therapy: 17 participants (35.4%) declined due to concern for AEs (Table 2).

From July 2023 to March 2024, the percentage of female veterans with active statin therapy with T2DM increased from 77.8% to 79.0%. For those with active statin therapy with CVD, usage increased from 82.2% to 90.2%, which exceeded the national VA average and facility male comparator group (Figures 2 and 3).¹⁷

Secondary Outcomes

Seventy-one of 129 veterans (55.0%) gave verbal consent, and 47 (66.2%) completed the pharmacogenomic testing; 58 (45.0%) declined. Five veterans (10.6%) had a known SLCO1B1 allele variant present. One veteran required a change in statin therapy based on the results (eAppendix).

Discussion

This project aimed to increase statin prescribing among female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD to reduce cardiovascular risk and increase pharmacogenomic testing using the PCED and care managed by CPPs. The results of this quality improvement project illustrated that both metrics have improved at CVVAMC as a result of the intervention. The results in both metrics now exceed the PCED national VA average, and the CVD metric also exceeds that of the facility male comparator group. While there was only a 1.2% increase from July 2023 to March 2024 for patients with T2DM, there was an 8.0% increase for patients with CVD. Despite standardized education on statin use, more veterans declined therapy than accepted it, mostly due to concern for AEs. Recording the reasons for declining statin therapy offered valuable insight that can be used in additional discussions with veterans and clinicians.

Pharmacogenomics gives clinicians the unique opportunity to take a proactive approach to better predict drug responses, potentially allowing for less trial and error with medications, fewer AEs, greater trust in the clinician, and improved medication adherence. The CPPs incorporated pharmacogenomic testing into their practice, which led to identifying 5 SLCO1B1 gene abnormalities. The PCED served as a powerful tool for advancing equity-focused quality improvement initiatives on a local level and was crucial in prioritizing the detection of veterans potentially receiving suboptimal care.

Limitations

The nature of “cold calls” made it challenging to establish contact for inclusion in this study. An alternative to increase engagement could have been scheduled phone or face-to-face visits. While the use of the PCED was crucial, data did not account for statins listed in the non-VA medication list. All 31 patients with statins prescribed outside the VA had a start date added to provide the most accurate representation of the data moving forward.

Another limitation in this project was its small sample size and population. CVVAMC serves about 6200 female veterans, with roughly 63% identifying as Black. The preponderance of Black individuals (83%) in this project is typical for the female patient population at CVVAMC but may not reflect the demographics of other populations. Other limitations to this project consisted of scheduling conflicts. Appointments for laboratory draws at community-based outpatient clinics were subject to availability, which resulted in some delay in completion of pharmacogenomic testing.

Conclusions

CPPs can help reduce inequity in health care delivery. Increased incorporation of the PCED into regular practice within the VA is recommended to continue addressing sex disparities in statin use, diabetes control, blood pressure management, cancer screenings, and vaccination needs. CVVAMC plans to expand its use through another quality improvement project focused on reducing sex disparities in blood pressure management. Improving educational resources made available to veterans on the importance of statin therapy and potential to mitigate AEs through use of the VA PHASER program also would be helpful. This project successfully improved CVVAMC metrics for female veterans appropriately prescribed statin therapy and increased access to pharmacogenomic testing. Most importantly, it helped close the sex-based gap in CVD risk reduction care.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among women in the United States.¹ Most CVD is due to the buildup of plaque (ie, cholesterol, proteins, calcium, and inflammatory cells) in artery walls.² The plaque may lead to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), which includes coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, and aortic atherosclerotic disease.^2,3 Control and reduction of ASCVD risk factors, including high cholesterol levels, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle, can contribute to a reduction in ASCVD morbidity and mortality.² People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of ASCVD.^4,5

The prescribing of statins (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzmye A reductase inhibitors) is the cornerstone of lipid-lowering therapy and cardiovascular risk reduction for primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.⁶ The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recommend moderate- to high-intensity statins for primary prevention in patients with T2DM and high-intensity statins for secondary prevention in those with or without diabetes when not contraindicated.^4,5,7 Despite eligibility according to guideline recommendations, research predominantly shows that women are less likely to receive statin therapy; however, this trend is improving. ^[6,8-11] To explain the sex differences in statin use, Nanna et al found that there is a combination of women being offered statin therapy less frequently, declining therapy more frequently, and discontinuing treatment more frequently.¹¹ One possibility for discontinuing treatment could be statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), which occur in about 10% of patients.¹² The incidence of adverse effects (AEs) may be related to the way statins are metabolized.

Pharmacogenomic testing is free for veterans through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) PHASER program, which offers information and recommendations for a panel of 11 gene variants. The panel includes genes related to common medication classes such as anticoagulants, antiplatelets, proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, antidepressants, and statins. The VA PHASER panel includes the solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) gene, which is predominantly expressed in the liver and facilitates the hepatic uptake of most statins.^13,14 A reduced function of SLCO1B1 can lead to higher statin levels, resulting in increased concentrations that may potentially cause SAMS.^13,14 Some alleles associated with reduced function include SLCO1B1*5, *15, *23, *31, and *46 to *49, whereas others are associated with increased function, such as SLCO1B1 *14 and *20 (Appendix).¹⁵ Supporting evidence shows the SLCO1B1*5 nucleotide polymorphism increases plasma levels of simvastatin and atorvastatin, affecting effectiveness or toxicity. ¹³ Females tend to have a lower body weight and higher percentage of body fat compared with males, which might lead to higher concentrations of lipophilic drugs, including atorvastatin and simvastatin, which may be exacerbated by decreased function of SLCO1B1*5.¹⁵ With pharmacogenomic testing, therapeutic recommendations can be made to improve the overall safety and efficacy of statins, thus improving adherence using a patient-specific approach.^14,15

Methods

Carl Vinson VA Medical Center (CVVAMC) serves about 42,000 veterans in Central and South Georgia, of which about 15% are female. Of the female veterans enrolled in care, 63% identify as Black, 27% White, and 1.5% as Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. The 2020 Veterans Chartbook report showed that female veterans and minority racial and ethnic groups had worse access to health care and higher mortality rates than their male and non-Hispanic White counterparts.¹⁶

The Primary Care Equity Dashboard (PCED) was developed to engage the VA health care workforce in the process of identifying and addressing inequities in local patient populations.¹⁷ Using electronic quality measure data, the PCED provides Veterans Integrated Service Network-level and facility-level performance on several metrics.¹⁸ The PCED had not been previously used at the CVVAMC, and few publications or quality improvement projects regarding its use have been reported by the VA Office of Health Equity. PCED helped identify disparities when comparing female to male patients in the prescribing of statin therapy for patients with CVD and statin therapy for patients with T2DM.

VA PHASER pharmacogenomic analyses provided an opportunity to expand this quality improvement project. Sanford Health and the VA collaborated on the PHASER program to offer free genetic testing for veterans. The program launched in 2019 and expanded to various VA sites, including CVVAMC in March 2023. This program has been extended to December 31, 2025.

The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to increase statin prescribing among female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD to reduce cardiovascular risk. Secondary outcomes included increased pharmacogenomic testing and the assessment of pharmacogenomic results related to statin therapy. This project was approved by the CVVAMC Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee. The PCED was used to identify female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD without an active prescription for a statin between July and October 2023. A review of Computerized Patient Record System patient charts was completed to screen for prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Veterans were included if they were assigned female at birth, were enrolled in care at CVVAMC, and had a diagnosis of T2DM or CVD (history of myocardial infarction, coronary bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or other revascularization in any setting).

Veterans were excluded if they were currently pregnant, trying to conceive, breastfeeding, had a T1DM diagnosis, had previously documented hypersensitivity to a statin, active liver failure or decompensated cirrhosis, previously documented statin-associated rhabdomyolysis or autoimmune myopathy, an active prescription for a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, or previously documented statin intolerance (defined as the inability to tolerate ≥ 3 statins, with ≥ 1 prescribed at low intensity or alternate-day dosing). The female veterans were compared to 2 comparators: the facility's male veterans and the VA national average, identified via the PCED.

Once a veteran was screened, they were telephoned between October 2023 and February 2024 and provided education on statin use and pharmacogenomic testing using a standardized note template. An order was placed for participants who provided verbal consent for pharmacogenomic testing. Those who agreed to statin initiation were referred to a clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) who contacted them at a later date to prescribe a statin following the recommendations of the 2019 ACC/AHA and 2023 ADA guidelines and pharmacogenomic testing, if applicable.^4,5,7 Appropriate monitoring and follow-up occurred at the discretion of each CPP. Data collection included: age, race, diagnoses (T2DM, CVD, or both), baseline lipid panel (total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein), hepatic function, name and dose of statin, reasons for declining statin therapy, and pharmacogenomic testing results related to SLCO1B1.

Results

At baseline in July 2023, 77.8% of female veterans with T2DM were prescribed a statin, which exceeded the national VA average (77.0%), but was below the rate for male veterans (78.7%) in the facility comparator group.17 Additionally, 82.2% of females with CVD were prescribed a statin, which was below the national VA average of 86.0% and the 84.9% of male veterans in the facility comparator group.17 The PCED identified 189 female veterans from July 2023 to October 2023 who may benefit from statin therapy. Thirty-three females met the exclusion criteria. Of the 156 included veterans, 129 (82.7%) were successfully contacted and 27 (17.3%) could not be reached by telephone after 3 attempts (Figure 1). The 129 female veterans contacted had a mean age of 59 years and the majority were Black (82.9%) (Table 1).

Primary Outcomes

Of the 129 contacted veterans, 31 (24.0%) had a non-VA statin prescription, 13 (10.1%) had an active VA statin prescription, and 85 (65.9%) did not have a statin prescription, despite being eligible. Statin adherence was confirmed with participants, and the medication list was updated accordingly.

Of the 85 veterans with no active statin therapy, 37 (43.5%) accepted a new statin prescription and 48 (56.5%) declined. There were various reasons provided for declining statin therapy: 17 participants (35.4%) declined due to concern for AEs (Table 2).

From July 2023 to March 2024, the percentage of female veterans with active statin therapy with T2DM increased from 77.8% to 79.0%. For those with active statin therapy with CVD, usage increased from 82.2% to 90.2%, which exceeded the national VA average and facility male comparator group (Figures 2 and 3).¹⁷

Secondary Outcomes

Seventy-one of 129 veterans (55.0%) gave verbal consent, and 47 (66.2%) completed the pharmacogenomic testing; 58 (45.0%) declined. Five veterans (10.6%) had a known SLCO1B1 allele variant present. One veteran required a change in statin therapy based on the results (eAppendix).

Discussion

This project aimed to increase statin prescribing among female veterans with T2DM and/or CVD to reduce cardiovascular risk and increase pharmacogenomic testing using the PCED and care managed by CPPs. The results of this quality improvement project illustrated that both metrics have improved at CVVAMC as a result of the intervention. The results in both metrics now exceed the PCED national VA average, and the CVD metric also exceeds that of the facility male comparator group. While there was only a 1.2% increase from July 2023 to March 2024 for patients with T2DM, there was an 8.0% increase for patients with CVD. Despite standardized education on statin use, more veterans declined therapy than accepted it, mostly due to concern for AEs. Recording the reasons for declining statin therapy offered valuable insight that can be used in additional discussions with veterans and clinicians.

Pharmacogenomics gives clinicians the unique opportunity to take a proactive approach to better predict drug responses, potentially allowing for less trial and error with medications, fewer AEs, greater trust in the clinician, and improved medication adherence. The CPPs incorporated pharmacogenomic testing into their practice, which led to identifying 5 SLCO1B1 gene abnormalities. The PCED served as a powerful tool for advancing equity-focused quality improvement initiatives on a local level and was crucial in prioritizing the detection of veterans potentially receiving suboptimal care.

Limitations

The nature of “cold calls” made it challenging to establish contact for inclusion in this study. An alternative to increase engagement could have been scheduled phone or face-to-face visits. While the use of the PCED was crucial, data did not account for statins listed in the non-VA medication list. All 31 patients with statins prescribed outside the VA had a start date added to provide the most accurate representation of the data moving forward.

Another limitation in this project was its small sample size and population. CVVAMC serves about 6200 female veterans, with roughly 63% identifying as Black. The preponderance of Black individuals (83%) in this project is typical for the female patient population at CVVAMC but may not reflect the demographics of other populations. Other limitations to this project consisted of scheduling conflicts. Appointments for laboratory draws at community-based outpatient clinics were subject to availability, which resulted in some delay in completion of pharmacogenomic testing.

Conclusions

CPPs can help reduce inequity in health care delivery. Increased incorporation of the PCED into regular practice within the VA is recommended to continue addressing sex disparities in statin use, diabetes control, blood pressure management, cancer screenings, and vaccination needs. CVVAMC plans to expand its use through another quality improvement project focused on reducing sex disparities in blood pressure management. Improving educational resources made available to veterans on the importance of statin therapy and potential to mitigate AEs through use of the VA PHASER program also would be helpful. This project successfully improved CVVAMC metrics for female veterans appropriately prescribed statin therapy and increased access to pharmacogenomic testing. Most importantly, it helped close the sex-based gap in CVD risk reduction care.

Background

Due to risk for infusion-related reactions (IRR), administration of iron dextran requires an initial test dose with an extended monitoring period and subsequent doses given as a slow infusion over 2-3 hours. Safe use of a 60-minute iron dextran infusion protocol has been demonstrated previously at fully staffed academic teaching institutions. This study sought to determine the impact on patient safety and infusion clinic efficiency after implementing a 60-minute iron dextran administration protocol at a small, rural facility utilizing a decentralized clinical model.

Methods

This single-site, prospective, interventional study was conducted at a rural level 1C Veterans Affairs secondary care facility. The Hematology/Oncology clinic staffing includes one onsite clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) and advanced practice nurse. Remote providers complete patient encounters through video and telehealth modalities. A 60-minute iron dextran infusion service line agreement was designed by the Hematology/Oncology CPP and approved by the facility prior to data collection. The protocol included administration of a test dose and 15-minute monitoring period for treatment naïve patients. Pre-medications were allowed at the discretion of the ordering providers. All patients who received iron dextran between May 31, 2024 and April 14, 2025 per protocol were included in data analysis and results were stratified by treatment naïve and pre-treated patients. Outcomes included the proportion of patients experiencing any grade of IRR based on the Common Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0, and the average duration of administration. Descriptive statistics were used for safety and efficiency outcomes.

Results

Eighty patients received 103 iron dextran infusions and were included for analysis. Pre-medications were administered for 16 of the 103 (15.5%) included infusions. Two patients experienced grade 1 IRR (nausea) on 4 occasions (3.8%) which quickly resolved with intravenous ondansetron, and full iron dextran doses were received. The mean infusion time was 94 minutes in the treatment naïve cohort vs 71 minutes in the pre-treated cohort.

Conclusions

This study suggests a Hematology/ Oncology CPP developed iron dextran 60-minute infusion protocol may be safely and efficiently administered for qualifying patients in a decentralized, rural healthcare setting.

Background

Due to risk for infusion-related reactions (IRR), administration of iron dextran requires an initial test dose with an extended monitoring period and subsequent doses given as a slow infusion over 2-3 hours. Safe use of a 60-minute iron dextran infusion protocol has been demonstrated previously at fully staffed academic teaching institutions. This study sought to determine the impact on patient safety and infusion clinic efficiency after implementing a 60-minute iron dextran administration protocol at a small, rural facility utilizing a decentralized clinical model.

Methods

This single-site, prospective, interventional study was conducted at a rural level 1C Veterans Affairs secondary care facility. The Hematology/Oncology clinic staffing includes one onsite clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) and advanced practice nurse. Remote providers complete patient encounters through video and telehealth modalities. A 60-minute iron dextran infusion service line agreement was designed by the Hematology/Oncology CPP and approved by the facility prior to data collection. The protocol included administration of a test dose and 15-minute monitoring period for treatment naïve patients. Pre-medications were allowed at the discretion of the ordering providers. All patients who received iron dextran between May 31, 2024 and April 14, 2025 per protocol were included in data analysis and results were stratified by treatment naïve and pre-treated patients. Outcomes included the proportion of patients experiencing any grade of IRR based on the Common Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0, and the average duration of administration. Descriptive statistics were used for safety and efficiency outcomes.

Results

Eighty patients received 103 iron dextran infusions and were included for analysis. Pre-medications were administered for 16 of the 103 (15.5%) included infusions. Two patients experienced grade 1 IRR (nausea) on 4 occasions (3.8%) which quickly resolved with intravenous ondansetron, and full iron dextran doses were received. The mean infusion time was 94 minutes in the treatment naïve cohort vs 71 minutes in the pre-treated cohort.

Conclusions

This study suggests a Hematology/ Oncology CPP developed iron dextran 60-minute infusion protocol may be safely and efficiently administered for qualifying patients in a decentralized, rural healthcare setting.

Background

Due to risk for infusion-related reactions (IRR), administration of iron dextran requires an initial test dose with an extended monitoring period and subsequent doses given as a slow infusion over 2-3 hours. Safe use of a 60-minute iron dextran infusion protocol has been demonstrated previously at fully staffed academic teaching institutions. This study sought to determine the impact on patient safety and infusion clinic efficiency after implementing a 60-minute iron dextran administration protocol at a small, rural facility utilizing a decentralized clinical model.

Methods

This single-site, prospective, interventional study was conducted at a rural level 1C Veterans Affairs secondary care facility. The Hematology/Oncology clinic staffing includes one onsite clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) and advanced practice nurse. Remote providers complete patient encounters through video and telehealth modalities. A 60-minute iron dextran infusion service line agreement was designed by the Hematology/Oncology CPP and approved by the facility prior to data collection. The protocol included administration of a test dose and 15-minute monitoring period for treatment naïve patients. Pre-medications were allowed at the discretion of the ordering providers. All patients who received iron dextran between May 31, 2024 and April 14, 2025 per protocol were included in data analysis and results were stratified by treatment naïve and pre-treated patients. Outcomes included the proportion of patients experiencing any grade of IRR based on the Common Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0, and the average duration of administration. Descriptive statistics were used for safety and efficiency outcomes.

Results

Eighty patients received 103 iron dextran infusions and were included for analysis. Pre-medications were administered for 16 of the 103 (15.5%) included infusions. Two patients experienced grade 1 IRR (nausea) on 4 occasions (3.8%) which quickly resolved with intravenous ondansetron, and full iron dextran doses were received. The mean infusion time was 94 minutes in the treatment naïve cohort vs 71 minutes in the pre-treated cohort.

Conclusions

This study suggests a Hematology/ Oncology CPP developed iron dextran 60-minute infusion protocol may be safely and efficiently administered for qualifying patients in a decentralized, rural healthcare setting.

Purpose/Background

Oncology clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPP) play a critical role in optimizing drug therapy, managing side effects, and ensuring medication adherence. As a specialized clinical area, specific training is needed to ensure quality of care. Oncology pharmacy training programs are commercially available but pose a financial burden and are not specific to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A comprehensive, virtual Oncology Bootcamp series was implemented to upskill new oncology pharmacists (or pharmacists seeking to further their understanding of oncology practice), with didactic materials and clinical tools to enhance and standardize quality care delivery.

Methods

This program was comprised of an online platform of 23 one hour-long continuing education accredited sessions, delivered by leading subject matter experts. Pharmacists from two Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) were invited for the first year of the bootcamp. The curriculum encompassed fundamentals of oncology practice, patient care assessment, chemotherapy protocol review, practice management, and supportive care. Participants also received in-depth training on managing various cancer types, including but not limited to prostate, lung, gastrointestinal and hematologic malignancies. VHA specific information, including utilization of Oncology Clinical Pathways to promote standardized care was included where applicable. The interactive nature of the virtual sessions provided opportunities for real-time discussion and immediate feedback. To measure the impact of this program, a pre and post program evaluation of participants was conducted.

Results

Over the course of the program, more than 40 pharmacists across two VISNs participated in the bootcamp series. Results of the program evaluation showed an increase in self-reported comfort and skill levels in all criteria that were assessed (oncology pharmacotherapy, solid tumor malignancies, hematologic malignancies and oral anti-cancer therapy management). Additionally, 85% of respondents stated the series met their overall goals and over 90% of respondents stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the content, speakers and organization of the course.

Implications/Significance

This initiative has established the viability and significance of a highly accessible, VHA pathway specific and Veteran centric platform for oncology pharmacy professional development. Future directions for the program include a broader nationwide audience, increased content coverage and self-paced learning options.

Purpose/Background

Oncology clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPP) play a critical role in optimizing drug therapy, managing side effects, and ensuring medication adherence. As a specialized clinical area, specific training is needed to ensure quality of care. Oncology pharmacy training programs are commercially available but pose a financial burden and are not specific to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A comprehensive, virtual Oncology Bootcamp series was implemented to upskill new oncology pharmacists (or pharmacists seeking to further their understanding of oncology practice), with didactic materials and clinical tools to enhance and standardize quality care delivery.

Methods

This program was comprised of an online platform of 23 one hour-long continuing education accredited sessions, delivered by leading subject matter experts. Pharmacists from two Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) were invited for the first year of the bootcamp. The curriculum encompassed fundamentals of oncology practice, patient care assessment, chemotherapy protocol review, practice management, and supportive care. Participants also received in-depth training on managing various cancer types, including but not limited to prostate, lung, gastrointestinal and hematologic malignancies. VHA specific information, including utilization of Oncology Clinical Pathways to promote standardized care was included where applicable. The interactive nature of the virtual sessions provided opportunities for real-time discussion and immediate feedback. To measure the impact of this program, a pre and post program evaluation of participants was conducted.

Results

Over the course of the program, more than 40 pharmacists across two VISNs participated in the bootcamp series. Results of the program evaluation showed an increase in self-reported comfort and skill levels in all criteria that were assessed (oncology pharmacotherapy, solid tumor malignancies, hematologic malignancies and oral anti-cancer therapy management). Additionally, 85% of respondents stated the series met their overall goals and over 90% of respondents stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the content, speakers and organization of the course.

Implications/Significance

This initiative has established the viability and significance of a highly accessible, VHA pathway specific and Veteran centric platform for oncology pharmacy professional development. Future directions for the program include a broader nationwide audience, increased content coverage and self-paced learning options.

Purpose/Background

Oncology clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPP) play a critical role in optimizing drug therapy, managing side effects, and ensuring medication adherence. As a specialized clinical area, specific training is needed to ensure quality of care. Oncology pharmacy training programs are commercially available but pose a financial burden and are not specific to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A comprehensive, virtual Oncology Bootcamp series was implemented to upskill new oncology pharmacists (or pharmacists seeking to further their understanding of oncology practice), with didactic materials and clinical tools to enhance and standardize quality care delivery.

Methods

This program was comprised of an online platform of 23 one hour-long continuing education accredited sessions, delivered by leading subject matter experts. Pharmacists from two Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) were invited for the first year of the bootcamp. The curriculum encompassed fundamentals of oncology practice, patient care assessment, chemotherapy protocol review, practice management, and supportive care. Participants also received in-depth training on managing various cancer types, including but not limited to prostate, lung, gastrointestinal and hematologic malignancies. VHA specific information, including utilization of Oncology Clinical Pathways to promote standardized care was included where applicable. The interactive nature of the virtual sessions provided opportunities for real-time discussion and immediate feedback. To measure the impact of this program, a pre and post program evaluation of participants was conducted.

Results

Over the course of the program, more than 40 pharmacists across two VISNs participated in the bootcamp series. Results of the program evaluation showed an increase in self-reported comfort and skill levels in all criteria that were assessed (oncology pharmacotherapy, solid tumor malignancies, hematologic malignancies and oral anti-cancer therapy management). Additionally, 85% of respondents stated the series met their overall goals and over 90% of respondents stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the content, speakers and organization of the course.

Implications/Significance

This initiative has established the viability and significance of a highly accessible, VHA pathway specific and Veteran centric platform for oncology pharmacy professional development. Future directions for the program include a broader nationwide audience, increased content coverage and self-paced learning options.

Background

Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is traditionally treated with immunosuppresimmunosuppression, and management of refractory disease is often a challenge. The anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab is emerging as a promising treatment for refractory wAIHA, as it targets autoantibody-producing plasma cells. Here, we present the first reported case of daratumumab used in conjunction with an erythropoiesisstimulating agent (ESA) to salvage refractory wAIHA in a patient with AIDS and bone marrow suppression.

Case Presentation

A middle aged man with HIV (undetectable viral load on antiretroviral treatment but CD4 persistently < 200, requiring chronic antimicrobial prophylaxis) was diagnosed with classic wAIHA in late 2021. The disease initially responded to corticosteroids, but relapsed repeatedly and eventually required IVIG, rituximab, danazol, and three immunosuppressive agents, none of which induced remission. Hemolysis worsened by fall 2024, with hemoglobin 5-6 g/dL despite high-dose corticosteroids and IVIG. Bone marrow biopsy was unrevealing, and he underwent splenectomy. However, recovery was complicated by cutaneous nocardiosis, iron overload, liver injury, and continued hemolysis. Eventually, reticulocytosis also ceased, and hemoglobin declined to 4-5 g/dL. Due to failure of standard therapies and to minimize further immunosuppression, weekly daratumumab injections were initiated, with weekly darbepoetin injections added to aid in compensatory hematopoiesis. With this combination, hemolysis indices improved, reticulocytosis picked up, and hemoglobin increased to 8-9 g/dL. However, the patient continued to struggle with infections, and he succumbed to drug-resistant bacterial sepsis in spring 2025.

Discussion

The patient had very complicated chronic and acute comorbidities, and some simplification was required in order to provide this summary. However, we hope this case adds to the literature on daratumumab as an effective new agent in refractory wAIHA, and also present a novel duo of therapies for patients who may struggle with bone marrow suppression in addition to autoimmune hemolysis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the combination used in this manner.

Conclusions

Daratumumab is an effective and less immunosuppressive alternative for the treatment of heavily pretreated refractory wAIHA. Its combined use with ESA in patients with inadequate reticulocytosis should be studied further to clarify the efficacy and safety in this setting.

Background

Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is traditionally treated with immunosuppresimmunosuppression, and management of refractory disease is often a challenge. The anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab is emerging as a promising treatment for refractory wAIHA, as it targets autoantibody-producing plasma cells. Here, we present the first reported case of daratumumab used in conjunction with an erythropoiesisstimulating agent (ESA) to salvage refractory wAIHA in a patient with AIDS and bone marrow suppression.

Case Presentation

A middle aged man with HIV (undetectable viral load on antiretroviral treatment but CD4 persistently < 200, requiring chronic antimicrobial prophylaxis) was diagnosed with classic wAIHA in late 2021. The disease initially responded to corticosteroids, but relapsed repeatedly and eventually required IVIG, rituximab, danazol, and three immunosuppressive agents, none of which induced remission. Hemolysis worsened by fall 2024, with hemoglobin 5-6 g/dL despite high-dose corticosteroids and IVIG. Bone marrow biopsy was unrevealing, and he underwent splenectomy. However, recovery was complicated by cutaneous nocardiosis, iron overload, liver injury, and continued hemolysis. Eventually, reticulocytosis also ceased, and hemoglobin declined to 4-5 g/dL. Due to failure of standard therapies and to minimize further immunosuppression, weekly daratumumab injections were initiated, with weekly darbepoetin injections added to aid in compensatory hematopoiesis. With this combination, hemolysis indices improved, reticulocytosis picked up, and hemoglobin increased to 8-9 g/dL. However, the patient continued to struggle with infections, and he succumbed to drug-resistant bacterial sepsis in spring 2025.

Discussion

The patient had very complicated chronic and acute comorbidities, and some simplification was required in order to provide this summary. However, we hope this case adds to the literature on daratumumab as an effective new agent in refractory wAIHA, and also present a novel duo of therapies for patients who may struggle with bone marrow suppression in addition to autoimmune hemolysis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the combination used in this manner.

Conclusions

Daratumumab is an effective and less immunosuppressive alternative for the treatment of heavily pretreated refractory wAIHA. Its combined use with ESA in patients with inadequate reticulocytosis should be studied further to clarify the efficacy and safety in this setting.

Background

Warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (wAIHA) is traditionally treated with immunosuppresimmunosuppression, and management of refractory disease is often a challenge. The anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab is emerging as a promising treatment for refractory wAIHA, as it targets autoantibody-producing plasma cells. Here, we present the first reported case of daratumumab used in conjunction with an erythropoiesisstimulating agent (ESA) to salvage refractory wAIHA in a patient with AIDS and bone marrow suppression.

Case Presentation

A middle aged man with HIV (undetectable viral load on antiretroviral treatment but CD4 persistently < 200, requiring chronic antimicrobial prophylaxis) was diagnosed with classic wAIHA in late 2021. The disease initially responded to corticosteroids, but relapsed repeatedly and eventually required IVIG, rituximab, danazol, and three immunosuppressive agents, none of which induced remission. Hemolysis worsened by fall 2024, with hemoglobin 5-6 g/dL despite high-dose corticosteroids and IVIG. Bone marrow biopsy was unrevealing, and he underwent splenectomy. However, recovery was complicated by cutaneous nocardiosis, iron overload, liver injury, and continued hemolysis. Eventually, reticulocytosis also ceased, and hemoglobin declined to 4-5 g/dL. Due to failure of standard therapies and to minimize further immunosuppression, weekly daratumumab injections were initiated, with weekly darbepoetin injections added to aid in compensatory hematopoiesis. With this combination, hemolysis indices improved, reticulocytosis picked up, and hemoglobin increased to 8-9 g/dL. However, the patient continued to struggle with infections, and he succumbed to drug-resistant bacterial sepsis in spring 2025.

Discussion

The patient had very complicated chronic and acute comorbidities, and some simplification was required in order to provide this summary. However, we hope this case adds to the literature on daratumumab as an effective new agent in refractory wAIHA, and also present a novel duo of therapies for patients who may struggle with bone marrow suppression in addition to autoimmune hemolysis. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the combination used in this manner.

Conclusions

Daratumumab is an effective and less immunosuppressive alternative for the treatment of heavily pretreated refractory wAIHA. Its combined use with ESA in patients with inadequate reticulocytosis should be studied further to clarify the efficacy and safety in this setting.

Background

Pancreatic cancer has one of the highest mortality rates due to its typical late-stage diagnosis and subsequent limited surgical options. However, recent advances in molecular profiling offer hope for targeted therapies. We present a case of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma which progressed despite surgery and chemotherapy yet showed a positive respond to Alectinib.

Case Description

A 79-year-old male with medical history of tobacco use and ulcerative colitis presented to the clinic with 15lb unintentional weight loss over the past few months in 04/2021. Computed tomography (CT) showed dilated common bile duct due to 2.2 x 1.9 x 1.7 cm mass with no metastatic disease. Biopsy was consistent with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and patient completed 6 cycles of dose-reduced neoadjuvant gemcitabine and paclitaxel in late 2021 due to his severe neuropathy and ECOG. Subsequent CT and PET-CT showed stable disease prior to undergoing pylorus-sparing pancreatoduodenectomy and cholecystectomy with portal vein resection in 05/2022 with surgical pathology grading yPT4N2cM0. The follow- up PET scan in 09/2022 revealed new pulmonary and liver metastases, along with increased uptake in the pancreatic region, suggesting recurrent disease. Next generation sequencing (NGS) identified an ELM4-ALK chromosomal rearrangement on the surgical pathology. Given the patient’s cancer progression and concerns about chemotherapy tolerance, Alectinib, a second-generation ALK inhibitor more commonly used in lung cancer, was considered as a treatment option. Patient began Alectinib 10/2022 with no significant side effects and PET scan on 03/2023 and 06/2023 showing resolution of his lung nodules and liver lesions. Patient remained on Alectinib until he transitioned to hospice after an ischemic stroke in 03/2024.

Discussion

Pancreatic cancer urgently requires novel therapies as about 25% of patients harbor actionable molecular alterations that have led to the success of targeted therapies. ALK fusion genes are identified in multiple cancers, but the prevalence is only 0.16% in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Alectinib provided an extended progression free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in our patient. ALK inhibitors may demonstrate a remarkable response in metastatic pancreatic cancer even in poor candidates for standard chemotherapy highlighting the emphasis of NGS and targeted therapy options for pancreatic cancer to improve survival.

Background

Pancreatic cancer has one of the highest mortality rates due to its typical late-stage diagnosis and subsequent limited surgical options. However, recent advances in molecular profiling offer hope for targeted therapies. We present a case of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma which progressed despite surgery and chemotherapy yet showed a positive respond to Alectinib.

Case Description

A 79-year-old male with medical history of tobacco use and ulcerative colitis presented to the clinic with 15lb unintentional weight loss over the past few months in 04/2021. Computed tomography (CT) showed dilated common bile duct due to 2.2 x 1.9 x 1.7 cm mass with no metastatic disease. Biopsy was consistent with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and patient completed 6 cycles of dose-reduced neoadjuvant gemcitabine and paclitaxel in late 2021 due to his severe neuropathy and ECOG. Subsequent CT and PET-CT showed stable disease prior to undergoing pylorus-sparing pancreatoduodenectomy and cholecystectomy with portal vein resection in 05/2022 with surgical pathology grading yPT4N2cM0. The follow- up PET scan in 09/2022 revealed new pulmonary and liver metastases, along with increased uptake in the pancreatic region, suggesting recurrent disease. Next generation sequencing (NGS) identified an ELM4-ALK chromosomal rearrangement on the surgical pathology. Given the patient’s cancer progression and concerns about chemotherapy tolerance, Alectinib, a second-generation ALK inhibitor more commonly used in lung cancer, was considered as a treatment option. Patient began Alectinib 10/2022 with no significant side effects and PET scan on 03/2023 and 06/2023 showing resolution of his lung nodules and liver lesions. Patient remained on Alectinib until he transitioned to hospice after an ischemic stroke in 03/2024.

Discussion

Pancreatic cancer urgently requires novel therapies as about 25% of patients harbor actionable molecular alterations that have led to the success of targeted therapies. ALK fusion genes are identified in multiple cancers, but the prevalence is only 0.16% in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Alectinib provided an extended progression free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in our patient. ALK inhibitors may demonstrate a remarkable response in metastatic pancreatic cancer even in poor candidates for standard chemotherapy highlighting the emphasis of NGS and targeted therapy options for pancreatic cancer to improve survival.

Background

Pancreatic cancer has one of the highest mortality rates due to its typical late-stage diagnosis and subsequent limited surgical options. However, recent advances in molecular profiling offer hope for targeted therapies. We present a case of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma which progressed despite surgery and chemotherapy yet showed a positive respond to Alectinib.

Case Description

A 79-year-old male with medical history of tobacco use and ulcerative colitis presented to the clinic with 15lb unintentional weight loss over the past few months in 04/2021. Computed tomography (CT) showed dilated common bile duct due to 2.2 x 1.9 x 1.7 cm mass with no metastatic disease. Biopsy was consistent with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and patient completed 6 cycles of dose-reduced neoadjuvant gemcitabine and paclitaxel in late 2021 due to his severe neuropathy and ECOG. Subsequent CT and PET-CT showed stable disease prior to undergoing pylorus-sparing pancreatoduodenectomy and cholecystectomy with portal vein resection in 05/2022 with surgical pathology grading yPT4N2cM0. The follow- up PET scan in 09/2022 revealed new pulmonary and liver metastases, along with increased uptake in the pancreatic region, suggesting recurrent disease. Next generation sequencing (NGS) identified an ELM4-ALK chromosomal rearrangement on the surgical pathology. Given the patient’s cancer progression and concerns about chemotherapy tolerance, Alectinib, a second-generation ALK inhibitor more commonly used in lung cancer, was considered as a treatment option. Patient began Alectinib 10/2022 with no significant side effects and PET scan on 03/2023 and 06/2023 showing resolution of his lung nodules and liver lesions. Patient remained on Alectinib until he transitioned to hospice after an ischemic stroke in 03/2024.

Discussion

Pancreatic cancer urgently requires novel therapies as about 25% of patients harbor actionable molecular alterations that have led to the success of targeted therapies. ALK fusion genes are identified in multiple cancers, but the prevalence is only 0.16% in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Alectinib provided an extended progression free survival compared with standard chemotherapy in our patient. ALK inhibitors may demonstrate a remarkable response in metastatic pancreatic cancer even in poor candidates for standard chemotherapy highlighting the emphasis of NGS and targeted therapy options for pancreatic cancer to improve survival.

Purpose

To compare vial utilization and spending between fixed and weight-based dosing of pembrolizumab in Veterans. Promote and assess pembrolizumab extended interval dosing.

Background

FDA approved pembrolizumab label change from weight-based to fixed dosing without evidence of fixed-dosing’s superiority. Retrospective studies demonstrate equivalent outcomes for 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W), 200 mg Q3W, 4 mg/kg every 6 weeks (Q6W), and 400 mg Q6W.

Methods

In July 2024 VAAAHS (VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System) initiated an immunotherapy stewardship quality improvement program to deprescribe unnecessary pembrolizumab units and promote extended-interval dosing. Specific interventions included order template modification and targeted outreach to key stakeholders.

Data Analysis

All pembrolizumab doses administered at VAAAHS between July 1, 2024 (launch) and March 31, 2025 (data cutoff) were extracted from EHR. Drug utilization, spending, and healthcare contact hours averted were compared to a fixed-dosing counterfactual.

Results

Sixty-three Veterans received 286 total pembrolizumab doses, of which 107 (37.4%) were Q6W and 179 (62.6%) were Q3W. In total, 741 vials were utilized, against expectation of 786 (5.7% reduction), reflecting approximately $182,000 in savings (annualized, $243,000) and 86.5% of the theoretical maximum savings were captured. Q6W’s share of all doses rose from 27.3% in July 2024 to 53.8% in March 2025. Amongst monotherapy, Q6W’s share rose from 60.0% in July 2024 to 86.7% in March 2025. Q6W adoption saved 381 Veteran-healthcare contact hours, not including travel time.

Conclusions

Stewardship efforts reduced unnecessary pembrolizumab utilization and spending while saving Veterans and VAAAHS providers’ time. Continued provider reinforcement, preparation for Oracle/ Cerner implementation, VISN expansion, refinement of pembrolizumab dose-banding, and development of dose bands for other immunotherapies are underway.

Significance

National implementation would improve Veteran convenience and quality of life, enable reductions in drug and resource costs, and enhance clinic throughput.

Purpose

To compare vial utilization and spending between fixed and weight-based dosing of pembrolizumab in Veterans. Promote and assess pembrolizumab extended interval dosing.

Background

FDA approved pembrolizumab label change from weight-based to fixed dosing without evidence of fixed-dosing’s superiority. Retrospective studies demonstrate equivalent outcomes for 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W), 200 mg Q3W, 4 mg/kg every 6 weeks (Q6W), and 400 mg Q6W.

Methods

In July 2024 VAAAHS (VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System) initiated an immunotherapy stewardship quality improvement program to deprescribe unnecessary pembrolizumab units and promote extended-interval dosing. Specific interventions included order template modification and targeted outreach to key stakeholders.

Data Analysis

All pembrolizumab doses administered at VAAAHS between July 1, 2024 (launch) and March 31, 2025 (data cutoff) were extracted from EHR. Drug utilization, spending, and healthcare contact hours averted were compared to a fixed-dosing counterfactual.

Results

Sixty-three Veterans received 286 total pembrolizumab doses, of which 107 (37.4%) were Q6W and 179 (62.6%) were Q3W. In total, 741 vials were utilized, against expectation of 786 (5.7% reduction), reflecting approximately $182,000 in savings (annualized, $243,000) and 86.5% of the theoretical maximum savings were captured. Q6W’s share of all doses rose from 27.3% in July 2024 to 53.8% in March 2025. Amongst monotherapy, Q6W’s share rose from 60.0% in July 2024 to 86.7% in March 2025. Q6W adoption saved 381 Veteran-healthcare contact hours, not including travel time.

Conclusions

Stewardship efforts reduced unnecessary pembrolizumab utilization and spending while saving Veterans and VAAAHS providers’ time. Continued provider reinforcement, preparation for Oracle/ Cerner implementation, VISN expansion, refinement of pembrolizumab dose-banding, and development of dose bands for other immunotherapies are underway.

Significance

National implementation would improve Veteran convenience and quality of life, enable reductions in drug and resource costs, and enhance clinic throughput.

Purpose

To compare vial utilization and spending between fixed and weight-based dosing of pembrolizumab in Veterans. Promote and assess pembrolizumab extended interval dosing.

Background

FDA approved pembrolizumab label change from weight-based to fixed dosing without evidence of fixed-dosing’s superiority. Retrospective studies demonstrate equivalent outcomes for 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W), 200 mg Q3W, 4 mg/kg every 6 weeks (Q6W), and 400 mg Q6W.

Methods

In July 2024 VAAAHS (VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System) initiated an immunotherapy stewardship quality improvement program to deprescribe unnecessary pembrolizumab units and promote extended-interval dosing. Specific interventions included order template modification and targeted outreach to key stakeholders.

Data Analysis

All pembrolizumab doses administered at VAAAHS between July 1, 2024 (launch) and March 31, 2025 (data cutoff) were extracted from EHR. Drug utilization, spending, and healthcare contact hours averted were compared to a fixed-dosing counterfactual.

Results

Sixty-three Veterans received 286 total pembrolizumab doses, of which 107 (37.4%) were Q6W and 179 (62.6%) were Q3W. In total, 741 vials were utilized, against expectation of 786 (5.7% reduction), reflecting approximately $182,000 in savings (annualized, $243,000) and 86.5% of the theoretical maximum savings were captured. Q6W’s share of all doses rose from 27.3% in July 2024 to 53.8% in March 2025. Amongst monotherapy, Q6W’s share rose from 60.0% in July 2024 to 86.7% in March 2025. Q6W adoption saved 381 Veteran-healthcare contact hours, not including travel time.

Conclusions

Stewardship efforts reduced unnecessary pembrolizumab utilization and spending while saving Veterans and VAAAHS providers’ time. Continued provider reinforcement, preparation for Oracle/ Cerner implementation, VISN expansion, refinement of pembrolizumab dose-banding, and development of dose bands for other immunotherapies are underway.

Significance

National implementation would improve Veteran convenience and quality of life, enable reductions in drug and resource costs, and enhance clinic throughput.

Statins are widely used to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).¹ However, despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, many patients may not reach their LDL and non-HDL goals. Some patients may experience adverse events (AEs), particularly muscle-related AEs, which can limit the use of these medications.

The 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC) expert consensus pathway recommends a goal LDL of < 55 mg/dL in very high-risk patients, defined as those with a history of multiple major ASCVD events or 1 major ASCVD event and multiple high-risk conditions.² Major ASCVD events include acute coronary syndrome within 12 months, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (ie, claudication with ankle-brachial index < 0.85 or previous revascularization or amputation). Factors for being considered high risk include age > 65 years, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of prior coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention outside the major ASCVD events, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m²), current smoking, persistently elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy and ezetimibe, and history of congestive heart failure.² For these patients, statin therapy alone may not achieve LDL goal. 

The ACC recommends ezetimibe as the initial nonstatin therapy in patients who are not at their goal LDL.² Ezetimibe works by inhibiting Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 protein, which causes reduced cholesterol absorption in the small intestine.^2,3 Previous studies have shown the benefit of ezetimibe for LDL reduction and ASCVD prevention.^4-7 The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study found the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than simvastatin monotherapy. IMPROVE-IT also reported a further clinical benefit when lower LDL targets (ie, < 55 mg/dL) are achieved, which aligns with the expert consensus pathway recommendations for a lower LDL goal for very high-risk patients.^2,5

The RACING trial found that treatment with a moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was noninferior to treatment with a high-intensity statin for the primary outcome of occurrence of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke within 3 years. The combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe achieved lower LDL-C levels and lower incidence of drug intolerance compared to high intensity statin monotherapy.⁶ The SHARP-CKD study assessed major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD who had no history of MI or coronary revascularization. The study found that lowering LDL-C with the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe safely reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with CKD.⁷

Lastly, the 2019 EWTOPIA 75 study found that ezetimibe noted a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, coronary revascularization, or stroke compared to placebo. Ezetimibe showed benefits in preventing ASCVD events independently of statin therapy.⁸ These clinical trials provided evidence for the efficacy of ezetimibe for secondary or primary prevention of ASCVD, patients with CKD, and patients who are not at their LDL goal despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe are reported to be 15% to 19% for monotherapy and 13% to 25% when used in combination with a statin.⁴ Given that the ACC now recommends lower LDL goals, patients may need additional lowering despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy.² Additionally, the package insert for ezetimibe reports increased area under the curve (AUC) values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease. It is anticipated that ezetimibe may show an increased reduction of LDL and non-HDL, but there may also be an increased risk for muscle-related AEs.³

This quality-assurance quality improvement project investigated the use of ezetimibe in patients with CKD to determine whether there is further LDL and non-HDL reduction in this patient population. It sought to determine the LDL and non-HDL percentage reduction in patients with and without CKD at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) and whether there is an increased risk for muscle-related AEs. Determining the percentage reduction of LDL and non-HDL within this population can help increase use of ezetimibe in patients not at their LDL or non-HDL goal or for those patients unable to tolerate statin therapy.

Methods

This single-center retrospective chart review investigated patients prescribed ezetimibe by a patient aligned care team (PACT) pharmacist at WBVAMC between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023. This project was determined to be nonresearch by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 multisite institutional review board. Patients were excluded from the review if they started taking ezetimibe outside of the prespecified time frame, if ezetimibe was initiated by a non-WBVAMC PACT pharmacist, or if there was no follow-up lipid panel obtained within 6 months of initiation of ezetimibe.

The primary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL reduction and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients without CKD. The secondary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL levels and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients with CKD. For this study, CKD was defined as a patient having an eGFR 15 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m². Non-HDL is the combination of LDL-C and very LDL-C and represents all potentially atherogenic particles. The 2022 Expert Consensus Pathway included non-HDL goals in addition to LDL goals.² Non-HDL cholesterol levels can be used for patients with elevated triglycerides where LDL levels may not be as accurate. To account for instances of elevated triglycerides, this study assessed changes in both LDL and non-HDL levels.

Data were collected from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and recorded in a spreadsheet. Collected data included age, sex, race, concomitant cholesterol-lowering medications (statin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitor, bempedoic acid, fish oil, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and fibrates), baseline lipid panel, lipid panel within 6 months of ezetimibe initiation, and eGFR level. If the patient’s LDL or non-HDL levels worsened on the follow-up lipid panel, their baseline LDL and non-HDL levels were used to calculate the percentage reduction; thus, the percentage reduction would be 0%. This strategy was used in prior research, notably the IMPROVE-IT and SHARP-CKD trials. 

Ezetimibe 5 mg once daily was used in this study based on a 2008 VA study that evaluated the use of ezetimibe 5 mg vs ezetimibe 10 mg and the percentage reduction of LDL with each dose. The study found no significant difference between the 5 mg and 10 mg dose.⁹ Most patients included in this study received the 5 mg dose.

Results

This retrospective chart review consisted of 173 patients, 137 (79.2%) without CKD and 36 (20.8%) with CKD at baseline. The mean age was 69.6 years, 155 (89.6%) patients were male, and 18 (10.4%) were female. There were 164 concomitant medications, including 115 patients prescribed a statin and 38 patients prescribed fish oil (Table 1).

Patients without CKD had mean reductions in LDL levels of 23.5% and non-HDL levels of 21.7% (Figure). Patients who had an increase in LDL and non-HDL levels were excluded to control for potential confounding factors such as dietary changes, discontinuation of ezetimibe therapy, nonadherence to ezetimibe, and medication changes that impacted follow-up laboratory tests such as discontinuation of a statin. Fifteen patients experienced an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels. After excluding these patients, those without CKD had a mean reduction in LDL levels of 28.0% and non-HDL levels of 25.5%. Nineteen (13.9%) patients without CKD experienced a muscle-related AE (Table 2). One patient discontinued ezetimibe and statin use following a Lyme disease diagnosis due to concerns over potential muscle-related AEs. 

Patients with CKD had a mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels of 27.0% and 24.8%, respectively. Patients with an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels were also excluded to help control for potential confounding factors. After excluding 4 patients with increased LDL and non-HDL levels, the mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels was 30.5% and 27.5%, respectively. Five (13.9%) patients with CKD experienced muscle-related AEs thought to be due to ezetimibe. Other AEs (eg, urticaria, diarrhea, reflux, dizziness, headache, upset stomach) were reported that led to discontinuation of ezetimibe, but only muscle-related AEs were analyzed.

Discussion

This retrospective chart review found larger reductions in LDL and non-HDL levels for patients with CKD than reported in the literature.⁴ Based on the findings that indicate a greater cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe, the results suggest an underutilization of ezetimibe in clinical practice, which may be due to clinicians favoring statin therapy and overlooking ezetimibe as a viable option based on recommendation in earlier guidelines. The 2022 guidelines transitioned from a statin focus to a focus on LDL targets and goals.²

According to the ACC, there is evidence to support a direct relationship between LDL-C levels, atherosclerosis progression, and ASCVD event risk.² Absolute LDL-C level reduction is directly associated with ASCVD risk reduction which supports the LDL hypothesis. There appears to be no specific LDL-C level below which benefit ceases.² This suggests that lower LDL-C targets (< 55 mg/dL) should be used when clinically indicated. Many patients are either unable to reach their goal LDL levels with statin monotherapy or are unable to tolerate statin therapy at higher doses, which may require additional pharmacotherapy to reach goal LDL-C. The ACC expert consensus pathway recommends ezetimibe as the initial add-on treatment to statins.² The RACING trial showed the benefit of adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin vs increasing to a high-intensity statin dose. This trial found patients had lower LDL levels and lower rates of intolerances, which further supports ezetimibe use.⁶

This quality improvement project assessed LDL and non-HDL level reduction in patients with CKD. As anticipated, there was greater reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen in patients with CKD. The SHARP-CKD trial also found reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with CKD.⁷ Given the reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with or without CKD, add-on therapy of ezetimibe should be recommended for patients who do not achieve their LDL goals with statin therapy or for patients who intolerant to statin therapy. 

The ezetimibe package insert reports myalgias incidence to be < 5% in patients and research has shown up to a 20% incidence of muscle-related AEs with statin therapy.^3,10 Based on the package information reporting increased AUC values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease, it was anticipated there may be an increased risk of muscle-related AEs in patients with CKD.³ However, this study found the same incidence of muscle-related AEs in patients with and without CKD. Previous research on statin-intolerant patients found the incidence of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe to be 23.0% and 28.8%.^11,12 This increased incidence of muscle-related AEs may be the result of including patients with a history of statin intolerance. Collectively, data from clinical trials and this study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statins appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe.^11,12 Clinicians and patients should be educated on the potential for these AEs and be aware that the likelihood may be greater if there is a history of statin intolerance. To our knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe in patients with and without CKD.

Limitations

This retrospective chart review was performed over a prespecified period and only patients initiated on ezetimibe by a PACT pharmacist were included. This study did not assess the percentage of LDL reduction in patients on concomitant statins vs those who were not on concomitant statins. The study only included 173 patients. Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. In addition, veterans may not be representative of the general population given their high comorbidity burden and other exposures. Some reported muscle-related AEs associated with ezetimibe may be attributed to the nocebo effect.

Conclusions

The results of this retrospective chart review suggest there may be a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen with ezetimibe therapy than reported within the literature. There was a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels in patients with CKD than in patients without CKD. Additionally, there were the same rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy in patients with and without CKD. The rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy were higher than reported in the medication’s package insert, but lower than reported in literature that included statin-intolerant patients. These results indicate there may be a benefit to an increase in use of ezetimibe in clinical practice due to its increased effectiveness and safety in patients with and without CKD. Ultimately, this can help patients achieve their LDL goals as recommended by ACC clinical practice guidelines.

Statins are widely used to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).¹ However, despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, many patients may not reach their LDL and non-HDL goals. Some patients may experience adverse events (AEs), particularly muscle-related AEs, which can limit the use of these medications.

The 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC) expert consensus pathway recommends a goal LDL of < 55 mg/dL in very high-risk patients, defined as those with a history of multiple major ASCVD events or 1 major ASCVD event and multiple high-risk conditions.² Major ASCVD events include acute coronary syndrome within 12 months, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (ie, claudication with ankle-brachial index < 0.85 or previous revascularization or amputation). Factors for being considered high risk include age > 65 years, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of prior coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention outside the major ASCVD events, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m²), current smoking, persistently elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy and ezetimibe, and history of congestive heart failure.² For these patients, statin therapy alone may not achieve LDL goal. 

The ACC recommends ezetimibe as the initial nonstatin therapy in patients who are not at their goal LDL.² Ezetimibe works by inhibiting Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 protein, which causes reduced cholesterol absorption in the small intestine.^2,3 Previous studies have shown the benefit of ezetimibe for LDL reduction and ASCVD prevention.^4-7 The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study found the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than simvastatin monotherapy. IMPROVE-IT also reported a further clinical benefit when lower LDL targets (ie, < 55 mg/dL) are achieved, which aligns with the expert consensus pathway recommendations for a lower LDL goal for very high-risk patients.^2,5

The RACING trial found that treatment with a moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was noninferior to treatment with a high-intensity statin for the primary outcome of occurrence of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke within 3 years. The combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe achieved lower LDL-C levels and lower incidence of drug intolerance compared to high intensity statin monotherapy.⁶ The SHARP-CKD study assessed major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD who had no history of MI or coronary revascularization. The study found that lowering LDL-C with the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe safely reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with CKD.⁷

Lastly, the 2019 EWTOPIA 75 study found that ezetimibe noted a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, coronary revascularization, or stroke compared to placebo. Ezetimibe showed benefits in preventing ASCVD events independently of statin therapy.⁸ These clinical trials provided evidence for the efficacy of ezetimibe for secondary or primary prevention of ASCVD, patients with CKD, and patients who are not at their LDL goal despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe are reported to be 15% to 19% for monotherapy and 13% to 25% when used in combination with a statin.⁴ Given that the ACC now recommends lower LDL goals, patients may need additional lowering despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy.² Additionally, the package insert for ezetimibe reports increased area under the curve (AUC) values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease. It is anticipated that ezetimibe may show an increased reduction of LDL and non-HDL, but there may also be an increased risk for muscle-related AEs.³

This quality-assurance quality improvement project investigated the use of ezetimibe in patients with CKD to determine whether there is further LDL and non-HDL reduction in this patient population. It sought to determine the LDL and non-HDL percentage reduction in patients with and without CKD at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) and whether there is an increased risk for muscle-related AEs. Determining the percentage reduction of LDL and non-HDL within this population can help increase use of ezetimibe in patients not at their LDL or non-HDL goal or for those patients unable to tolerate statin therapy.

Methods

This single-center retrospective chart review investigated patients prescribed ezetimibe by a patient aligned care team (PACT) pharmacist at WBVAMC between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023. This project was determined to be nonresearch by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 multisite institutional review board. Patients were excluded from the review if they started taking ezetimibe outside of the prespecified time frame, if ezetimibe was initiated by a non-WBVAMC PACT pharmacist, or if there was no follow-up lipid panel obtained within 6 months of initiation of ezetimibe.

The primary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL reduction and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients without CKD. The secondary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL levels and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients with CKD. For this study, CKD was defined as a patient having an eGFR 15 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m². Non-HDL is the combination of LDL-C and very LDL-C and represents all potentially atherogenic particles. The 2022 Expert Consensus Pathway included non-HDL goals in addition to LDL goals.² Non-HDL cholesterol levels can be used for patients with elevated triglycerides where LDL levels may not be as accurate. To account for instances of elevated triglycerides, this study assessed changes in both LDL and non-HDL levels.

Data were collected from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and recorded in a spreadsheet. Collected data included age, sex, race, concomitant cholesterol-lowering medications (statin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitor, bempedoic acid, fish oil, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and fibrates), baseline lipid panel, lipid panel within 6 months of ezetimibe initiation, and eGFR level. If the patient’s LDL or non-HDL levels worsened on the follow-up lipid panel, their baseline LDL and non-HDL levels were used to calculate the percentage reduction; thus, the percentage reduction would be 0%. This strategy was used in prior research, notably the IMPROVE-IT and SHARP-CKD trials. 

Ezetimibe 5 mg once daily was used in this study based on a 2008 VA study that evaluated the use of ezetimibe 5 mg vs ezetimibe 10 mg and the percentage reduction of LDL with each dose. The study found no significant difference between the 5 mg and 10 mg dose.⁹ Most patients included in this study received the 5 mg dose.

Results

This retrospective chart review consisted of 173 patients, 137 (79.2%) without CKD and 36 (20.8%) with CKD at baseline. The mean age was 69.6 years, 155 (89.6%) patients were male, and 18 (10.4%) were female. There were 164 concomitant medications, including 115 patients prescribed a statin and 38 patients prescribed fish oil (Table 1).

Patients without CKD had mean reductions in LDL levels of 23.5% and non-HDL levels of 21.7% (Figure). Patients who had an increase in LDL and non-HDL levels were excluded to control for potential confounding factors such as dietary changes, discontinuation of ezetimibe therapy, nonadherence to ezetimibe, and medication changes that impacted follow-up laboratory tests such as discontinuation of a statin. Fifteen patients experienced an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels. After excluding these patients, those without CKD had a mean reduction in LDL levels of 28.0% and non-HDL levels of 25.5%. Nineteen (13.9%) patients without CKD experienced a muscle-related AE (Table 2). One patient discontinued ezetimibe and statin use following a Lyme disease diagnosis due to concerns over potential muscle-related AEs. 

Patients with CKD had a mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels of 27.0% and 24.8%, respectively. Patients with an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels were also excluded to help control for potential confounding factors. After excluding 4 patients with increased LDL and non-HDL levels, the mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels was 30.5% and 27.5%, respectively. Five (13.9%) patients with CKD experienced muscle-related AEs thought to be due to ezetimibe. Other AEs (eg, urticaria, diarrhea, reflux, dizziness, headache, upset stomach) were reported that led to discontinuation of ezetimibe, but only muscle-related AEs were analyzed.

Discussion

This retrospective chart review found larger reductions in LDL and non-HDL levels for patients with CKD than reported in the literature.⁴ Based on the findings that indicate a greater cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe, the results suggest an underutilization of ezetimibe in clinical practice, which may be due to clinicians favoring statin therapy and overlooking ezetimibe as a viable option based on recommendation in earlier guidelines. The 2022 guidelines transitioned from a statin focus to a focus on LDL targets and goals.²

According to the ACC, there is evidence to support a direct relationship between LDL-C levels, atherosclerosis progression, and ASCVD event risk.² Absolute LDL-C level reduction is directly associated with ASCVD risk reduction which supports the LDL hypothesis. There appears to be no specific LDL-C level below which benefit ceases.² This suggests that lower LDL-C targets (< 55 mg/dL) should be used when clinically indicated. Many patients are either unable to reach their goal LDL levels with statin monotherapy or are unable to tolerate statin therapy at higher doses, which may require additional pharmacotherapy to reach goal LDL-C. The ACC expert consensus pathway recommends ezetimibe as the initial add-on treatment to statins.² The RACING trial showed the benefit of adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin vs increasing to a high-intensity statin dose. This trial found patients had lower LDL levels and lower rates of intolerances, which further supports ezetimibe use.⁶

This quality improvement project assessed LDL and non-HDL level reduction in patients with CKD. As anticipated, there was greater reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen in patients with CKD. The SHARP-CKD trial also found reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with CKD.⁷ Given the reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with or without CKD, add-on therapy of ezetimibe should be recommended for patients who do not achieve their LDL goals with statin therapy or for patients who intolerant to statin therapy. 

The ezetimibe package insert reports myalgias incidence to be < 5% in patients and research has shown up to a 20% incidence of muscle-related AEs with statin therapy.^3,10 Based on the package information reporting increased AUC values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease, it was anticipated there may be an increased risk of muscle-related AEs in patients with CKD.³ However, this study found the same incidence of muscle-related AEs in patients with and without CKD. Previous research on statin-intolerant patients found the incidence of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe to be 23.0% and 28.8%.^11,12 This increased incidence of muscle-related AEs may be the result of including patients with a history of statin intolerance. Collectively, data from clinical trials and this study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statins appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe.^11,12 Clinicians and patients should be educated on the potential for these AEs and be aware that the likelihood may be greater if there is a history of statin intolerance. To our knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe in patients with and without CKD.

Limitations

This retrospective chart review was performed over a prespecified period and only patients initiated on ezetimibe by a PACT pharmacist were included. This study did not assess the percentage of LDL reduction in patients on concomitant statins vs those who were not on concomitant statins. The study only included 173 patients. Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. In addition, veterans may not be representative of the general population given their high comorbidity burden and other exposures. Some reported muscle-related AEs associated with ezetimibe may be attributed to the nocebo effect.

Conclusions

The results of this retrospective chart review suggest there may be a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen with ezetimibe therapy than reported within the literature. There was a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels in patients with CKD than in patients without CKD. Additionally, there were the same rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy in patients with and without CKD. The rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy were higher than reported in the medication’s package insert, but lower than reported in literature that included statin-intolerant patients. These results indicate there may be a benefit to an increase in use of ezetimibe in clinical practice due to its increased effectiveness and safety in patients with and without CKD. Ultimately, this can help patients achieve their LDL goals as recommended by ACC clinical practice guidelines.

Statins are widely used to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).¹ However, despite maximally tolerated statin therapy, many patients may not reach their LDL and non-HDL goals. Some patients may experience adverse events (AEs), particularly muscle-related AEs, which can limit the use of these medications.

The 2022 American College of Cardiology (ACC) expert consensus pathway recommends a goal LDL of < 55 mg/dL in very high-risk patients, defined as those with a history of multiple major ASCVD events or 1 major ASCVD event and multiple high-risk conditions.² Major ASCVD events include acute coronary syndrome within 12 months, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (ie, claudication with ankle-brachial index < 0.85 or previous revascularization or amputation). Factors for being considered high risk include age > 65 years, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, history of prior coronary artery bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention outside the major ASCVD events, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m²), current smoking, persistently elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy and ezetimibe, and history of congestive heart failure.² For these patients, statin therapy alone may not achieve LDL goal. 

The ACC recommends ezetimibe as the initial nonstatin therapy in patients who are not at their goal LDL.² Ezetimibe works by inhibiting Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 protein, which causes reduced cholesterol absorption in the small intestine.^2,3 Previous studies have shown the benefit of ezetimibe for LDL reduction and ASCVD prevention.^4-7 The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study found the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than simvastatin monotherapy. IMPROVE-IT also reported a further clinical benefit when lower LDL targets (ie, < 55 mg/dL) are achieved, which aligns with the expert consensus pathway recommendations for a lower LDL goal for very high-risk patients.^2,5

The RACING trial found that treatment with a moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was noninferior to treatment with a high-intensity statin for the primary outcome of occurrence of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke within 3 years. The combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe achieved lower LDL-C levels and lower incidence of drug intolerance compared to high intensity statin monotherapy.⁶ The SHARP-CKD study assessed major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD who had no history of MI or coronary revascularization. The study found that lowering LDL-C with the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe safely reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with CKD.⁷

Lastly, the 2019 EWTOPIA 75 study found that ezetimibe noted a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, coronary revascularization, or stroke compared to placebo. Ezetimibe showed benefits in preventing ASCVD events independently of statin therapy.⁸ These clinical trials provided evidence for the efficacy of ezetimibe for secondary or primary prevention of ASCVD, patients with CKD, and patients who are not at their LDL goal despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe are reported to be 15% to 19% for monotherapy and 13% to 25% when used in combination with a statin.⁴ Given that the ACC now recommends lower LDL goals, patients may need additional lowering despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy.² Additionally, the package insert for ezetimibe reports increased area under the curve (AUC) values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease. It is anticipated that ezetimibe may show an increased reduction of LDL and non-HDL, but there may also be an increased risk for muscle-related AEs.³

This quality-assurance quality improvement project investigated the use of ezetimibe in patients with CKD to determine whether there is further LDL and non-HDL reduction in this patient population. It sought to determine the LDL and non-HDL percentage reduction in patients with and without CKD at the Wilkes-Barre Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WBVAMC) and whether there is an increased risk for muscle-related AEs. Determining the percentage reduction of LDL and non-HDL within this population can help increase use of ezetimibe in patients not at their LDL or non-HDL goal or for those patients unable to tolerate statin therapy.

Methods

This single-center retrospective chart review investigated patients prescribed ezetimibe by a patient aligned care team (PACT) pharmacist at WBVAMC between September 1, 2021, and September 1, 2023. This project was determined to be nonresearch by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 4 multisite institutional review board. Patients were excluded from the review if they started taking ezetimibe outside of the prespecified time frame, if ezetimibe was initiated by a non-WBVAMC PACT pharmacist, or if there was no follow-up lipid panel obtained within 6 months of initiation of ezetimibe.

The primary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL reduction and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients without CKD. The secondary outcomes were to determine the percentage mean change in LDL and non-HDL levels and the incidence of muscle-related AEs after initiation of ezetimibe in patients with CKD. For this study, CKD was defined as a patient having an eGFR 15 to 60 ml/min/1.73 m². Non-HDL is the combination of LDL-C and very LDL-C and represents all potentially atherogenic particles. The 2022 Expert Consensus Pathway included non-HDL goals in addition to LDL goals.² Non-HDL cholesterol levels can be used for patients with elevated triglycerides where LDL levels may not be as accurate. To account for instances of elevated triglycerides, this study assessed changes in both LDL and non-HDL levels.

Data were collected from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and recorded in a spreadsheet. Collected data included age, sex, race, concomitant cholesterol-lowering medications (statin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitor, bempedoic acid, fish oil, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and fibrates), baseline lipid panel, lipid panel within 6 months of ezetimibe initiation, and eGFR level. If the patient’s LDL or non-HDL levels worsened on the follow-up lipid panel, their baseline LDL and non-HDL levels were used to calculate the percentage reduction; thus, the percentage reduction would be 0%. This strategy was used in prior research, notably the IMPROVE-IT and SHARP-CKD trials. 

Ezetimibe 5 mg once daily was used in this study based on a 2008 VA study that evaluated the use of ezetimibe 5 mg vs ezetimibe 10 mg and the percentage reduction of LDL with each dose. The study found no significant difference between the 5 mg and 10 mg dose.⁹ Most patients included in this study received the 5 mg dose.

Results

This retrospective chart review consisted of 173 patients, 137 (79.2%) without CKD and 36 (20.8%) with CKD at baseline. The mean age was 69.6 years, 155 (89.6%) patients were male, and 18 (10.4%) were female. There were 164 concomitant medications, including 115 patients prescribed a statin and 38 patients prescribed fish oil (Table 1).

Patients without CKD had mean reductions in LDL levels of 23.5% and non-HDL levels of 21.7% (Figure). Patients who had an increase in LDL and non-HDL levels were excluded to control for potential confounding factors such as dietary changes, discontinuation of ezetimibe therapy, nonadherence to ezetimibe, and medication changes that impacted follow-up laboratory tests such as discontinuation of a statin. Fifteen patients experienced an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels. After excluding these patients, those without CKD had a mean reduction in LDL levels of 28.0% and non-HDL levels of 25.5%. Nineteen (13.9%) patients without CKD experienced a muscle-related AE (Table 2). One patient discontinued ezetimibe and statin use following a Lyme disease diagnosis due to concerns over potential muscle-related AEs. 

Patients with CKD had a mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels of 27.0% and 24.8%, respectively. Patients with an increase in LDL or non-HDL levels were also excluded to help control for potential confounding factors. After excluding 4 patients with increased LDL and non-HDL levels, the mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels was 30.5% and 27.5%, respectively. Five (13.9%) patients with CKD experienced muscle-related AEs thought to be due to ezetimibe. Other AEs (eg, urticaria, diarrhea, reflux, dizziness, headache, upset stomach) were reported that led to discontinuation of ezetimibe, but only muscle-related AEs were analyzed.

Discussion

This retrospective chart review found larger reductions in LDL and non-HDL levels for patients with CKD than reported in the literature.⁴ Based on the findings that indicate a greater cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe, the results suggest an underutilization of ezetimibe in clinical practice, which may be due to clinicians favoring statin therapy and overlooking ezetimibe as a viable option based on recommendation in earlier guidelines. The 2022 guidelines transitioned from a statin focus to a focus on LDL targets and goals.²

According to the ACC, there is evidence to support a direct relationship between LDL-C levels, atherosclerosis progression, and ASCVD event risk.² Absolute LDL-C level reduction is directly associated with ASCVD risk reduction which supports the LDL hypothesis. There appears to be no specific LDL-C level below which benefit ceases.² This suggests that lower LDL-C targets (< 55 mg/dL) should be used when clinically indicated. Many patients are either unable to reach their goal LDL levels with statin monotherapy or are unable to tolerate statin therapy at higher doses, which may require additional pharmacotherapy to reach goal LDL-C. The ACC expert consensus pathway recommends ezetimibe as the initial add-on treatment to statins.² The RACING trial showed the benefit of adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin vs increasing to a high-intensity statin dose. This trial found patients had lower LDL levels and lower rates of intolerances, which further supports ezetimibe use.⁶

This quality improvement project assessed LDL and non-HDL level reduction in patients with CKD. As anticipated, there was greater reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen in patients with CKD. The SHARP-CKD trial also found reductions in LDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with CKD.⁷ Given the reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels with ezetimibe in patients with or without CKD, add-on therapy of ezetimibe should be recommended for patients who do not achieve their LDL goals with statin therapy or for patients who intolerant to statin therapy. 

The ezetimibe package insert reports myalgias incidence to be < 5% in patients and research has shown up to a 20% incidence of muscle-related AEs with statin therapy.^3,10 Based on the package information reporting increased AUC values of ezetimibe and its metabolites in patients with severe renal disease, it was anticipated there may be an increased risk of muscle-related AEs in patients with CKD.³ However, this study found the same incidence of muscle-related AEs in patients with and without CKD. Previous research on statin-intolerant patients found the incidence of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe to be 23.0% and 28.8%.^11,12 This increased incidence of muscle-related AEs may be the result of including patients with a history of statin intolerance. Collectively, data from clinical trials and this study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statins appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe.^11,12 Clinicians and patients should be educated on the potential for these AEs and be aware that the likelihood may be greater if there is a history of statin intolerance. To our knowledge, this was the first study to evaluate muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe in patients with and without CKD.

Limitations

This retrospective chart review was performed over a prespecified period and only patients initiated on ezetimibe by a PACT pharmacist were included. This study did not assess the percentage of LDL reduction in patients on concomitant statins vs those who were not on concomitant statins. The study only included 173 patients. Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. In addition, veterans may not be representative of the general population given their high comorbidity burden and other exposures. Some reported muscle-related AEs associated with ezetimibe may be attributed to the nocebo effect.

Conclusions

The results of this retrospective chart review suggest there may be a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels seen with ezetimibe therapy than reported within the literature. There was a larger mean reduction in LDL and non-HDL levels in patients with CKD than in patients without CKD. Additionally, there were the same rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy in patients with and without CKD. The rates of muscle-related AEs with ezetimibe therapy were higher than reported in the medication’s package insert, but lower than reported in literature that included statin-intolerant patients. These results indicate there may be a benefit to an increase in use of ezetimibe in clinical practice due to its increased effectiveness and safety in patients with and without CKD. Ultimately, this can help patients achieve their LDL goals as recommended by ACC clinical practice guidelines.