User login
Respiratory infections, asthma rise before type 2 diabetes
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.
Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.
Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.
“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”
Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.
Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”
But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis
Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.
The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”
By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.
Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”
“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.
In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.
After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.
Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.
Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.
“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”
Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.
Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”
But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis
Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.
The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”
By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.
Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”
“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.
In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.
After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – , shows a longitudinal study looking at comorbidities both 25 years before and 25 years after a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
About 40% of people had respiratory tract infections at the time of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes, compared with 4% who were not diagnosed. Likewise, ear, nose, and throat infections were present in 20% of people at type 2 diabetes diagnosis, compared with around 2% who were not diagnosed. A similar pattern was seen with asthma.
Taken together, the data suggest that subacute inflammation manifesting in asthma as well as the onset of asthma or an acute infection may be a precursor to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
“We have also found that in the years prior to diagnosis, there are associations with infections and inflammatory disorders to a much greater degree than in those people who do not get a diabetes diagnosis but who have very similar demographics,” Adrian Heald, MD, study lead and diabetes consultant from Salford (England) Royal Hospital, said in an interview.
Five years prior to diagnosis, respiratory tract infections were documented in around 23% of patients who were later diagnosed with type 2 diabetes versus 2.5% in those not diagnosed, and a similar pattern was seen for ear, nose, and throat infections and asthma. The findings suggest that patients reporting infections, in addition to other known risk factors for type 2 diabetes, might benefit from diabetes tests and early interventions, if needed.
“These novel insights offer a fascinating and fresh perspective on the onset and natural progression to type 2 diabetes and beyond, suggesting an early phase of inflammation-related disease activity long before any clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is made.”
Dr. Heald points out that clinicians may intervene to stave off progression to a type 2 diabetes diagnosis in at risk patients. “At this point, an intervention could relate to lifestyle changes and involve highlighting to the patient that the morbidity they have already accumulated is suggestive of diabetes risk,” he said, adding that, “they may have dyslipidemia, hypertension, and most often excess weight so annual checks of their HbA1c, weight management, and blood pressure would need checking,” he explained.
Moderator Coen Stehouwer, MD, professor of internal medicine at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, commented, “Before clinical diagnosis of type 2 diabetes there is often a lengthy period of undiagnosed disease and before that, prediabetes, because glucose can be abnormal up to 10 years prior to clinical diagnosis.”
But he added that, “It’s not entirely clear whether the rise seen before clinical diagnosis in this study correlates with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes or even if it precedes type 2 diabetes – it might be because inflammation is a common origin for type 2 diabetes and various comorbidities. This might explain how they go together.”
Longitudinal study 25 years before and 25 years after type 2 diagnosis
Dr. Heald presented the findings at a session on inflammation in diabetes at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The work was also published in Diabetes Therapy.
The researchers wanted to investigate the pattern of comorbidities in the years and decades prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes as well as after: “With the database we used, called DARE [Diabetes Alliance for Research in England], we are able to explore phenomena longitudinally going right back to the beginning of their digital health records, looking at phenotypes over time.”
By mapping significant health issues in people who went on to develop type 2 diabetes alongside those that did not, Dr. Heald managed to develop a continuum spanning 25 years prior and 25 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. The researchers also examined relationships between sociodemographic factors and longitudinal health outcomes of relevance to cardiac conditions and lower respiratory tract infections. His talk in Hamburg primarily addressed clinical phenotypes before the point of diagnosis.
Data were drawn from 1,932 people with (1,196) and without (736) type 2 diabetes. Participants in both groups were aged 66-67 years, 43%-46% were women, age at diagnosis was 50-52 years, and participants lived in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom.
In the years leading up to type 2 diagnosis, individuals consistently exhibited a considerable increase in several clinical phenotypes, reported Dr. Heald. Of note, he added, “immediately prior to type 2 diagnosis, there was a significantly greater proportion of hypertension at 35%, respiratory tract infection at 34%, heart disease at 17%, ear, nose, and throat infection at 19%, and asthma at 12%. And by comparison, the corresponding disease trajectory in matched controls was much less dramatic.”
“There is a huge difference in people who went on to receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and those who did not, and not just what we’d expect – so hypertension for example or manifestations of renal disease, but importantly inflammatory disorders are more common,” he emphasized.
In addition, a larger signal for ischemic heart disease was seen just before type 2 diabetes diagnosis.
These data suggest that longitudinal clinical histories prior to a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes might offer new information, both genetic and nongenetic, about development of type 2 diabetes in relation to comorbidities.
After type 2 diabetes diagnosis, the proportion of people exhibiting coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and infections climbed rapidly before plateauing, reported Dr. Heald. “We also know that individuals with coronary artery disease are more highly represented in socially disadvantaged groups, and this is borne out in the data at 25 years prior and after type 2 diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald has received speaker fees or contributed to advisory boards from Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Besins, Bayer, Sanofi, and Recordati. Research grants from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Besins. Professor Stehouwer has declared no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
Weight loss with semaglutide maintained for up to 3 years
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.
and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.
Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”
Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
Large scale, long term, and real world
Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.
Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”
“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”
A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m2; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.
For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.
The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.
Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
Three-year sustained effect
Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.
A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.
Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).
As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).
Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”
He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”
Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Tirzepatide with insulin glargine improves type 2 diabetes
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.
It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.
Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”
Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.
The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”
Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine
The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.
Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”
The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).
Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m2). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.
Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.
About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”
Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”
Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide
Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.
In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.
“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.
Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.
Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”
There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.
The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.
It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.
Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”
Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.
The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”
Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine
The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.
Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”
The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).
Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m2). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.
Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.
About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”
Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”
Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide
Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.
In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.
“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.
Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.
Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”
There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.
The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.
It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.
Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”
Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.
The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.
“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”
Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine
The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.
Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”
The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).
Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m2). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.
Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.
About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”
Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”
Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.
“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide
Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.
In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.
“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.
Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.
Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”
There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.
The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASD 2023
Menstruation linked to underdiagnosis of type 2 diabetes?
The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.
In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.
The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.
They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”
Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.
“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”
Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”
But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.”
Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD
Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.
In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.
The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”
However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”
The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.
Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.
Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years
The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.
However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).
The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”
Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.
Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.
The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.
Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”
“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”
Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.
In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.
The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.
They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”
Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.
“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”
Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”
But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.”
Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD
Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.
In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.
The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”
However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”
The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.
Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.
Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years
The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.
However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).
The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”
Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.
Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.
The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.
Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”
“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”
Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.
In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.
The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.
They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”
Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.
“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”
Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”
But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.”
Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD
Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.
In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.
The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”
However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”
The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.
Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.
Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years
The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.
However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).
The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”
Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.
Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.
The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”
Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.
Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”
“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”
Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2023
Should we rename obesity?
Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”
And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.
Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?
This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.
“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”
One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.
Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”
He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”
But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”
Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”
Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.
“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this
Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”
She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.
Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.
Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”
By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”
The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.
Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”
Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.
“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?
Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.
Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.
He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”
“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”
He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”
He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”
Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”
Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.
Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.
He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”
However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.
But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.
“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations
Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.
“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”
Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”
Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”
Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.
“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.
“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”
Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”
And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.
Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?
This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.
“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”
One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.
Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”
He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”
But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”
Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”
Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.
“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this
Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”
She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.
Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.
Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”
By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”
The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.
Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”
Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.
“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?
Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.
Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.
He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”
“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”
He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”
He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”
Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”
Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.
Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.
He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”
However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.
But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.
“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations
Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.
“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”
Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”
Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”
Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.
“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.
“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”
Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Public perception of disease is everything. “Diabetics” are now referred to as “people living with diabetes,” and an “obese person” is now an “individual living with obesity.”
And is the term so tainted in negativity, blame, and bias that the only solution is to scrap it and completely rename it? Society (and medicine) have changed significantly since the Latin word obesitas was adopted back in the 1600s.
Despite so much hinging on the word “obesity,” it’s remarkable that the label persists while the concepts underpinning it have evolved significantly. So perhaps it is more about finding the least-worst option rather than pursuing the impossibility of a solution that suits all?
This is precisely the challenge faced by a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission on the Definition and Diagnosis of Clinical Obesity, which is due to publish its initial findings this coming fall. The global task force has 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, including representatives with lived experiences of obesity. Leading the project is Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College London.
“Renaming ‘obesity’ is very important,” states Dr. Rubino. “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, some might say the only solution is to change the name.”
One possibility for a new name, introduced by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (now –Endocrinology) and the American College of Endocrinology back in 2016, was based on framing the disease on the central characteristic of adiposity and was termed ABCD, for adiposity-based chronic disease.
Dr. Rubino welcomes “ABCD” but has some reservations. “It is good from a physiological point of view, but the problem is it speaks to scientists and medical professionals. I don’t know how much it would appeal to the general public. ‘ABCD’ still falls short of telling us what the illness is.”
He adds that the Lancet Commission’s approach is rather to call it “clinical obesity.” “ ‘Obesity’ itself doesn’t necessarily convey the message that you have a disease or an illness,” he observes. “It is similar to the difference in meaning between depression and clinical depression, which communicate two different things.”
But underpinning any renaming is greater clarification of the definition and diagnosis of obesity. In 1997, the World Health Organization recognized obesity as a chronic disease; in 2013, the American Medical Association did likewise, adding that it warranted medical attention; while it took until 2021 for the European Commission to define obesity as a “chronic relapsing disease, which in turn acts as a gateway to a range of other non-communicable diseases.”
Yet, 25 years after the initial recognition of obesity as a disease, the concept is still riddled with negativity, whether openly or unconsciously. Such stigma denigrates overweight people and those with obesity as “lazy, sloppy, unintelligent, and unattractive.”
Dr. Rubino explains that first, it’s important to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. This is key to improving access to clinical care, reducing personal blame, and nurturing a more supportive research environment to help inform both clinical and policy decision-making.
“This is the question that is at the core of our commission. We have a problem with the current definition of obesity, and the way we measure it does not allow us to accurately define a state of illness with obesity,” he explains.
Labels shape public perceptions of disease; ‘obesity’ epitomizes this
Another expert championing the need for a name that better reflects the definition – whatever that turns out to be – is Margaret Steele, PhD, School of Public Health, University College Cork (Ireland), who, according to her university webpage, has a special interest in “ ‘fatness’ as a cultural, social and political phenomenon.”
She believes that labels, including “obesity,” have a pivotal role in shaping public perceptions. In our digital, information-rich age, the boundaries of medicine and society overlap, with public perception shaping decisions of a medical nature as never before. But with this comes controversy and division – obesity management being a case in point.
Specifically, the word “obesity” is too widely associated with negative connotations, she says, and therefore she welcomes the dialogue around redefining and renaming it. Despite wide general support for a name and definition that reflects adiposity, due to its central physiologic role in the complications of obesity, Dr. Steele believes that the “effects on adipose tissue are downstream of brain issues and the food environment,” and she wants to see more attention brought to this.
Referring to most Westernized societies, she describes how people who grew up in times of food scarcity, before processed foods became widely available, have a different taste profile from those who grew up afterwards. “Growing up in 1940s and ‘50s Ireland, people recall how they remember getting an orange as a treat at Christmas, because the idea that you could have food all year-round – any fruit and veg that you want, when you want it – just wasn’t there.”
By comparison, societal changes leading to more financial and time pressure in later decades meant that fast, high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods became more desirable, she points out. “Most young children now recognize the company name, and even the specific fast-food brand [they like], before they know their alphabet.”
The current environment has cultivated “a very different physical reaction to foods, maybe a different kind of emotional response,” she believes, highlighting the tightly woven relationship between obesity, society, mental health, and food options.
Dr. Steele wants to stimulate a conversation about the term used to describe individuals, conventionally described as ‘”obese” or using the word “obesity.” “We’re thinking in terms of maybe chronic appetite, chronic food intake, or dietary intake dysregulation.”
Changing medical terminology when it has become useless or harmful is not new, she argues, with co-author, Francis Finucane, MD, consultant endocrinologist at Galway University Hospitals, Ireland, in a recent paper on the subject.
“In the 20th century, the terms ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘moron’ had become used in a pejorative way in the wider culture and were dropped from medical usage,” Dr. Steele points out. She adds that changing the term “obesity” can facilitate pursuit of the strategic goals of clinical medicine “without causing needless controversy with those who, given their own goals and contexts, understand body mass index or body weight in a radically different way.”
Obesity: Disease, risk factor, or both?
Dr. Rubino stresses that prior to any renaming, there is a need to establish and define the essential components and characteristics of the disease of obesity. “This question is at the core of our Commission, and it is not an easy conversation to have.” He further explains that the struggle with the current definition of obesity, and the way it is conceived, is largely centered on it still being considered a risk factor for something else.
Disease is characterized by three things, says Dr. Rubino. These comprise the phenomenon of having a pathogenic cause, leading to pathophysiologic alterations (of the organs), causing clinical manifestations.
He adds that obesity is currently described by what it can cause – for example, type 2 diabetes, cancer, or hypertension. “Each of these things have their own clinical manifestations but obesity doesn’t. [As a disease], we don’t have a definition of the clinical manifestations of obesity other than excess adiposity.”
“If we use BMI, this does not predict excess adiposity, nor does it determine a disease here and now. There is no disease without an illness, which is the clinical manifestation, and the perception by the patient of it being an illness,” explains Dr. Rubino, pointing out that the Lancet Commission is filling this gap in knowledge by asking, “If obesity is an illness, then what does it look like?”
He adds that waist circumference probably provides a better measure than BMI in directly indicating the abnormal distribution of adiposity, known to be associated with poor cardiometabolic outcomes, “but it doesn’t tell you if you have an illness here and now – only that someone is at risk of developing cardiovascular disease in the future. Most people with some excess fat around the waist are perfectly functional and don’t feel ill.”
He also explains that confusion persists around whether obesity – or excess adiposity – is a risk factor for or a symptom of another disease. “The picture is blurred, and we do not know how to discriminate between these. We only have one name, and it applies to all those things, and we have one criterion – BMI – to diagnose it!”
Dr. Rubino adds, “So, what defines it? Is it diabetes? No, because that is another disease. You don’t define a disease by another. It has to stand on its own.”
Recently, the American Medical Association advised that BMI now be used in conjunction with other valid measures of risk such as, but not limited to, measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference, and genetic/metabolic factors.
Aayush Visaria, MD, an internal medicine resident at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, agrees that a new name might help change public perception of obesity for the better. A study he presented at the 2023 Endocrine Society Meeting found that BMI “vastly underestimates” obesity.
He agrees with Dr. Rubino that the challenge lies in the lack of precise understanding of the mechanisms driving obesity: “It’s multifactorial, so not just appetite or food intake. Putting this into one phrase is difficult.”
However, if a new term can incorporate the many facets of the disease, “overall, it’ll reduce stigma because we’ll start to think about obesity as a disease process, not a personal thing with blame attached,” says Dr. Visaria.
But simultaneously, he expresses caution around possible negative connotations associated with the classification of obesity as a disease. Dr. Steele also reflects on this risk, highlighting that medicalizing body size can be counterproductive in feeding into weight stigma and fatphobia.
“Medicalizing obesity can be discouraging rather than empowering, but by specifying more clearly that we’re talking about a specific set of interrelated metabolic conditions, it would make it much clearer, and that ... this isn’t about making people skinny, it isn’t about an aesthetic thing,” Dr. Steele observes.
The word ‘obesity’ hinders disease explanations
Dr. Steele explains that her goal is to overcome the ambiguity around the word “obesity” that hinders explanations of the disease of obesity to the wider public.
“Much confusion and controversy might be avoided if we were to clarify that when doctors say that obesity is a disease, they do not mean that being ‘fat’ is a disease.”
Nevertheless, adipose tissue is an active endocrine organ, producing hormones that function less well in people with obesity, she notes. “This new knowledge has led to better treatments, including drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide. These drugs, like bariatric surgery, typically lead to significant weight loss and to improvements in overall metabolic health.”
Dr. Rubino also expresses concerns around medicalization, as determined by definition and diagnosis and the availability of drug treatment that could potentially lead to overtreatment. “Currently, when everyone with a BMI of greater than 30 gets access to every obesity treatment out there, we see drugs are running out of stock. We should prioritize that treatment.”
Ultimately, the diagnosis of obesity as a disease needs an anthropometric biomarker that provides, on an individual level, the confidence that a person has a disease today, or at least close to a 100% likelihood of developing this disease and illness, asserts Dr. Rubino.
“If we use BMI, or even waist circumference, these might diagnose the disease; but if the person lives to 90 years, what’s the point of labeling somebody as having an illness?” he points out.
“As doctors, we have to be cautious. We say this is a disease, but you must think about the implications for the person on the receiving end of that diagnosis of a chronic disease that is substantially incurable. When we say it, we need to be certain.”
Dr. Steele and Dr. Visaria have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino disclosed that he has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson. He has undertaken paid consultancy work for GI Dynamics and received honoraria for lectures from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Johnson & Johnson. He is a member of the data safety monitoring board for GT Metabolic Solutions and has provided scientific advice to Keyron, Metadeq, GHP Scientific, and ViBo Health for no remuneration.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Naltrexone is safe and beneficial in AUD with cirrhosis
VIENNA – , results of the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.
After 3 months, 64% of patients who received naltrexone were abstinent from alcohol, compared with 22% of patients who received placebo, Manasa Alla, MD, a hepatologist from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (ILBS), New Delhi, said at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2023, where she presented the study findings.
Importantly, naltrexone was found to be safe for patients with compensated cirrhosis. “This fragile population of patients has limited drugs to help them quit alcohol. Naltrexone can be a valuable addition to their measures to reduce craving and on their journey to reach de-addiction and abstinence,” Dr. Alla said.
Hepatotoxicity with naltrexone is rare and data are limited. The Food and Drug Administration previously placed a warning on its use for patients with alcoholic liver disease and underlying cirrhosis.
As a clinician constantly challenged with treating patients with AUD and cirrhosis, Dr. Alla wanted to explore the safety of naltrexone and to test its suitability for these patients who struggle to quit alcohol.
“Here we aimed to primarily test the safety of naltrexone in achieving abstinence and reducing alcohol cravings in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis,” she said, adding, “The FDA black box warning has been removed, but it has never been tested in an RCT in patients with cirrhosis, so this is exactly what we did here.
“Naltrexone is a very good anti-alcohol-craving drug. If we can establish its safety in cirrhotic patients, it may have very good potential in reducing AUD and reducing the related complications of continued alcohol intake,” Dr. Alla said.
Safety, abstinence, lapse, and relapse assessed
The prospective, double-blind, single-center study at the ILBS in New Delhi, enrolled 100 patients with alcohol dependence and cirrhosis between 2020 and 2022. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive naltrexone (50 mg/d) or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants attended regular counseling sessions with the resident psychiatrist. At baseline, the biochemical and drinking-related assessment scores between active and placebo groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis were matched.
Abstinence from alcohol was assessed through self-reported mean number of standard drinks (12 g alcohol per day). Findings were corroborated through an interview with a family member. Serum ethyl glucuronide levels were measured in cases of discrepancy. A relapse was considered to be consumption of over four standard alcoholic drinks/month; a lapse was considered any other alcohol drinking event not classified as relapse.
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved and maintained alcohol abstinence at 12 weeks; secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who took naltrexone without a liver-related adverse effect compared with placebo at 12 weeks, the number of relapses and lapses, the difference in craving scores on the Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) between groups at 4, 8, and 12 weeks and at 6 months and 12 months, and the proportion of patients who achieved and maintained alcohol abstinence at 6 months.
Abstinence at 3 months
After 3 months, abstinence was noted in 64% of the study population who received naltrexone, compared to 22% of those who received placebo (P < .001). At 6 months, a higher proportion of patients in the naltrexone group achieved abstinence (22% vs. 8% with placebo; P = .09).
“We still need to look at the longer-term effects of naltrexone,” Dr. Alla said. “Here we gave the drug plus counseling for 3 months only, so despite encouraging findings, we need further studies to understand more.”
The researchers analyzed the predictors of abstinence at 3 months. They found that patients who consumed fewer than 17 drinks per month at baseline were more likely to achieve abstinence (sensitivity, 81%).
“Our study showed that patients who are consuming less alcohol at baseline can quit alcohol if adequately motivated. We need the motivation, as well as the drug,” she said.
Patient counseling was also very important and was provided for the 3 months of the study. “Even in the placebo arm, we had some patients who became abstinent [11/50 patients], but this dropped at 6 months [to 4/50],” Dr. Alla said.
At 12 weeks, 28% in the naltrexone group experienced relapse, vs. 72% in the placebo group (P < .001). Regarding the secondary outcome of craving scores and how they were affected by naltrexone, the mean OCDS-O (obsessive element) scores were 6.63, compared with 9.29 in naltrexone and placebo, respectively (P < .01). The mean OCDS-C (compulsive element) scores were 6.34 and 9.02, respectively (P < .01).
“Most important, was the safety of naltrexone in this study,” she said. There were no significant adverse events in either arm, and only one patient discontinued the drug in the naltrexone arm. Three patients in the naltrexone group who continued alcohol consumption developed jaundice, “so the jaundice can be attributed to continuous alcohol intake and may not be secondary to the naltrexone per se. We concluded that naltrexone is safe in a compensated cirrhotic patient,” Dr. Alla said.
Regarding other adverse events, 13.7% of patients experienced gastritis with naltrexone, vs. 3.7% among patients who received placebo. Nausea was more common in the placebo group, at 11.1% compared with 6.8% among patients who received naltrexone. Vomiting was more common in the naltrexone arm, at 10.3% vs. 7.4% with placebo. None of these differences reached statistical significance.
A longer-term study and comparisons to other drugs would provide valuable insights going forward.
Moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, professor and head of hepatology at the University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said: “Any intervention that can reduce or stop alcohol use in patients with cirrhosis and more advanced cirrhosis will improve outcome as well as reduce complications and mortality.
“In some cases, alcohol rehabilitation can completely revert the damaged liver. We have lots of data that show that continuous alcohol use at the more advanced stages can be devastating and reduction [in alcohol use] improves outcome. Therefore, any intervention that can help us to achieve this on behalf of all patients is most welcome,” he said.
Naltrexone (ADDTREX) and identical placebos were supplied by Rusan Pharma. Dr. Alla has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience and has participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – , results of the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.
After 3 months, 64% of patients who received naltrexone were abstinent from alcohol, compared with 22% of patients who received placebo, Manasa Alla, MD, a hepatologist from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (ILBS), New Delhi, said at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2023, where she presented the study findings.
Importantly, naltrexone was found to be safe for patients with compensated cirrhosis. “This fragile population of patients has limited drugs to help them quit alcohol. Naltrexone can be a valuable addition to their measures to reduce craving and on their journey to reach de-addiction and abstinence,” Dr. Alla said.
Hepatotoxicity with naltrexone is rare and data are limited. The Food and Drug Administration previously placed a warning on its use for patients with alcoholic liver disease and underlying cirrhosis.
As a clinician constantly challenged with treating patients with AUD and cirrhosis, Dr. Alla wanted to explore the safety of naltrexone and to test its suitability for these patients who struggle to quit alcohol.
“Here we aimed to primarily test the safety of naltrexone in achieving abstinence and reducing alcohol cravings in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis,” she said, adding, “The FDA black box warning has been removed, but it has never been tested in an RCT in patients with cirrhosis, so this is exactly what we did here.
“Naltrexone is a very good anti-alcohol-craving drug. If we can establish its safety in cirrhotic patients, it may have very good potential in reducing AUD and reducing the related complications of continued alcohol intake,” Dr. Alla said.
Safety, abstinence, lapse, and relapse assessed
The prospective, double-blind, single-center study at the ILBS in New Delhi, enrolled 100 patients with alcohol dependence and cirrhosis between 2020 and 2022. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive naltrexone (50 mg/d) or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants attended regular counseling sessions with the resident psychiatrist. At baseline, the biochemical and drinking-related assessment scores between active and placebo groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis were matched.
Abstinence from alcohol was assessed through self-reported mean number of standard drinks (12 g alcohol per day). Findings were corroborated through an interview with a family member. Serum ethyl glucuronide levels were measured in cases of discrepancy. A relapse was considered to be consumption of over four standard alcoholic drinks/month; a lapse was considered any other alcohol drinking event not classified as relapse.
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved and maintained alcohol abstinence at 12 weeks; secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who took naltrexone without a liver-related adverse effect compared with placebo at 12 weeks, the number of relapses and lapses, the difference in craving scores on the Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) between groups at 4, 8, and 12 weeks and at 6 months and 12 months, and the proportion of patients who achieved and maintained alcohol abstinence at 6 months.
Abstinence at 3 months
After 3 months, abstinence was noted in 64% of the study population who received naltrexone, compared to 22% of those who received placebo (P < .001). At 6 months, a higher proportion of patients in the naltrexone group achieved abstinence (22% vs. 8% with placebo; P = .09).
“We still need to look at the longer-term effects of naltrexone,” Dr. Alla said. “Here we gave the drug plus counseling for 3 months only, so despite encouraging findings, we need further studies to understand more.”
The researchers analyzed the predictors of abstinence at 3 months. They found that patients who consumed fewer than 17 drinks per month at baseline were more likely to achieve abstinence (sensitivity, 81%).
“Our study showed that patients who are consuming less alcohol at baseline can quit alcohol if adequately motivated. We need the motivation, as well as the drug,” she said.
Patient counseling was also very important and was provided for the 3 months of the study. “Even in the placebo arm, we had some patients who became abstinent [11/50 patients], but this dropped at 6 months [to 4/50],” Dr. Alla said.
At 12 weeks, 28% in the naltrexone group experienced relapse, vs. 72% in the placebo group (P < .001). Regarding the secondary outcome of craving scores and how they were affected by naltrexone, the mean OCDS-O (obsessive element) scores were 6.63, compared with 9.29 in naltrexone and placebo, respectively (P < .01). The mean OCDS-C (compulsive element) scores were 6.34 and 9.02, respectively (P < .01).
“Most important, was the safety of naltrexone in this study,” she said. There were no significant adverse events in either arm, and only one patient discontinued the drug in the naltrexone arm. Three patients in the naltrexone group who continued alcohol consumption developed jaundice, “so the jaundice can be attributed to continuous alcohol intake and may not be secondary to the naltrexone per se. We concluded that naltrexone is safe in a compensated cirrhotic patient,” Dr. Alla said.
Regarding other adverse events, 13.7% of patients experienced gastritis with naltrexone, vs. 3.7% among patients who received placebo. Nausea was more common in the placebo group, at 11.1% compared with 6.8% among patients who received naltrexone. Vomiting was more common in the naltrexone arm, at 10.3% vs. 7.4% with placebo. None of these differences reached statistical significance.
A longer-term study and comparisons to other drugs would provide valuable insights going forward.
Moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, professor and head of hepatology at the University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said: “Any intervention that can reduce or stop alcohol use in patients with cirrhosis and more advanced cirrhosis will improve outcome as well as reduce complications and mortality.
“In some cases, alcohol rehabilitation can completely revert the damaged liver. We have lots of data that show that continuous alcohol use at the more advanced stages can be devastating and reduction [in alcohol use] improves outcome. Therefore, any intervention that can help us to achieve this on behalf of all patients is most welcome,” he said.
Naltrexone (ADDTREX) and identical placebos were supplied by Rusan Pharma. Dr. Alla has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience and has participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – , results of the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.
After 3 months, 64% of patients who received naltrexone were abstinent from alcohol, compared with 22% of patients who received placebo, Manasa Alla, MD, a hepatologist from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (ILBS), New Delhi, said at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2023, where she presented the study findings.
Importantly, naltrexone was found to be safe for patients with compensated cirrhosis. “This fragile population of patients has limited drugs to help them quit alcohol. Naltrexone can be a valuable addition to their measures to reduce craving and on their journey to reach de-addiction and abstinence,” Dr. Alla said.
Hepatotoxicity with naltrexone is rare and data are limited. The Food and Drug Administration previously placed a warning on its use for patients with alcoholic liver disease and underlying cirrhosis.
As a clinician constantly challenged with treating patients with AUD and cirrhosis, Dr. Alla wanted to explore the safety of naltrexone and to test its suitability for these patients who struggle to quit alcohol.
“Here we aimed to primarily test the safety of naltrexone in achieving abstinence and reducing alcohol cravings in patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis,” she said, adding, “The FDA black box warning has been removed, but it has never been tested in an RCT in patients with cirrhosis, so this is exactly what we did here.
“Naltrexone is a very good anti-alcohol-craving drug. If we can establish its safety in cirrhotic patients, it may have very good potential in reducing AUD and reducing the related complications of continued alcohol intake,” Dr. Alla said.
Safety, abstinence, lapse, and relapse assessed
The prospective, double-blind, single-center study at the ILBS in New Delhi, enrolled 100 patients with alcohol dependence and cirrhosis between 2020 and 2022. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive naltrexone (50 mg/d) or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants attended regular counseling sessions with the resident psychiatrist. At baseline, the biochemical and drinking-related assessment scores between active and placebo groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis were matched.
Abstinence from alcohol was assessed through self-reported mean number of standard drinks (12 g alcohol per day). Findings were corroborated through an interview with a family member. Serum ethyl glucuronide levels were measured in cases of discrepancy. A relapse was considered to be consumption of over four standard alcoholic drinks/month; a lapse was considered any other alcohol drinking event not classified as relapse.
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved and maintained alcohol abstinence at 12 weeks; secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who took naltrexone without a liver-related adverse effect compared with placebo at 12 weeks, the number of relapses and lapses, the difference in craving scores on the Obsessive Compulsive Drinking Scale (OCDS) between groups at 4, 8, and 12 weeks and at 6 months and 12 months, and the proportion of patients who achieved and maintained alcohol abstinence at 6 months.
Abstinence at 3 months
After 3 months, abstinence was noted in 64% of the study population who received naltrexone, compared to 22% of those who received placebo (P < .001). At 6 months, a higher proportion of patients in the naltrexone group achieved abstinence (22% vs. 8% with placebo; P = .09).
“We still need to look at the longer-term effects of naltrexone,” Dr. Alla said. “Here we gave the drug plus counseling for 3 months only, so despite encouraging findings, we need further studies to understand more.”
The researchers analyzed the predictors of abstinence at 3 months. They found that patients who consumed fewer than 17 drinks per month at baseline were more likely to achieve abstinence (sensitivity, 81%).
“Our study showed that patients who are consuming less alcohol at baseline can quit alcohol if adequately motivated. We need the motivation, as well as the drug,” she said.
Patient counseling was also very important and was provided for the 3 months of the study. “Even in the placebo arm, we had some patients who became abstinent [11/50 patients], but this dropped at 6 months [to 4/50],” Dr. Alla said.
At 12 weeks, 28% in the naltrexone group experienced relapse, vs. 72% in the placebo group (P < .001). Regarding the secondary outcome of craving scores and how they were affected by naltrexone, the mean OCDS-O (obsessive element) scores were 6.63, compared with 9.29 in naltrexone and placebo, respectively (P < .01). The mean OCDS-C (compulsive element) scores were 6.34 and 9.02, respectively (P < .01).
“Most important, was the safety of naltrexone in this study,” she said. There were no significant adverse events in either arm, and only one patient discontinued the drug in the naltrexone arm. Three patients in the naltrexone group who continued alcohol consumption developed jaundice, “so the jaundice can be attributed to continuous alcohol intake and may not be secondary to the naltrexone per se. We concluded that naltrexone is safe in a compensated cirrhotic patient,” Dr. Alla said.
Regarding other adverse events, 13.7% of patients experienced gastritis with naltrexone, vs. 3.7% among patients who received placebo. Nausea was more common in the placebo group, at 11.1% compared with 6.8% among patients who received naltrexone. Vomiting was more common in the naltrexone arm, at 10.3% vs. 7.4% with placebo. None of these differences reached statistical significance.
A longer-term study and comparisons to other drugs would provide valuable insights going forward.
Moderator Aleksander Krag, MD, professor and head of hepatology at the University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Denmark, said: “Any intervention that can reduce or stop alcohol use in patients with cirrhosis and more advanced cirrhosis will improve outcome as well as reduce complications and mortality.
“In some cases, alcohol rehabilitation can completely revert the damaged liver. We have lots of data that show that continuous alcohol use at the more advanced stages can be devastating and reduction [in alcohol use] improves outcome. Therefore, any intervention that can help us to achieve this on behalf of all patients is most welcome,” he said.
Naltrexone (ADDTREX) and identical placebos were supplied by Rusan Pharma. Dr. Alla has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience and has participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT EASL CONGRESS 2023
SAFE algorithm detects liver disease in general population
VIENNA – An algorithm, the Steatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator (SAFE), was developed to detect clinically significant fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). It is effective at detecting chronic liver disease from all causes with or without NAFLD in the general population, according the results of a U.S. population-based study. The algorithm was designed for use in primary care to help slow the steep rise in liver disease burden.
On the basis of the SAFE score, 61.3% of participants were at low risk for clinically significant fibrosis; 11.2% were at high risk; and 27.5% were at intermediate risk. Upon validation, very few of the low-risk participants had liver fibrosis, while nearly a third of those with a high-risk score had clinically significant fibrosis. In addition, a high percentage of the patients with high-risk SAFE scores had viral hepatitis and elevations in ferritin level.
“This is the first time that there has been a test that provides a score to detect low-risk liver disease in primary care,” said Ray Kim, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, senior investigator, who was speaking to this news organization at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver
“Primary care doctors currently detect liver disease through a serendipitous abnormal finding on ultrasound or blood tests that detect elevated transaminases, and then the patient is referred to a hepatologist, who figures out what is really going on,” said Dr. Kim.
“This approach is limited, so we need to get SAFE into primary care so these doctors can automatically calculate their scores, and if the patient is over 100 [high risk of chronic liver disease], then they need help [referral to a hepatologist].”
Liver deaths sharply rising
Public health data show that more people are dying of liver disease today than previously. Deaths in the United States have doubled over the past 20 years, said Dr. Kim. “If our mission is to help these patients and prevent death, [things are] moving in the wrong direction.”
He stressed that in order to change the direction, “primary care doctors need to engage with the issue and have appropriate tools to identify people with liver disease.”
Most often, the reason for this rise in deaths is that cases are being diagnosed at advanced stages of disease in which reversibility is limited, he added. “We want to move upstream where people might have early-stage disease and where we can intervene and make a difference.”
In an effort to help earlier detection of liver disease, the SAFE score was developed and validated by Dr. Kim and his colleagues to detect clinically significant (greater than stage 2) fibrosis in patients with NAFLD in primary care. The score is based upon age, body mass index, diabetes, platelet level, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels, and globulin level. A score of less than zero signifies that a patient is at low risk for liver fibrosis, while a score greater than 100 signifies a high risk of fibrosis. A score between 0 and 99 denotes intermediate risk of fibrosis.
“Unlike other noninvasive tests that detect advanced fibrosis, this one detects early-stage fibrosis. We’ve shown that the SAFE estimator is better than all other blood-based markers,” explained Dr. Kim.
Applying SAFE to the general population
In the study presented here at EASL, Dr. Kim aimed to expand the horizon for SAFE testing to the U.S. general population and to assess whether SAFE was effective in screening for chronic liver disease regardless of steatosis of the liver.
Together with first author Nakia Chung, MD, also from Stanford University, Dr. Kim applied the SAFE score to data from 7,156 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2017-2020. NHANES is representative of the noninstitutionalized, civilian population of the United States. It includes broad demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, including transient elastography data. FibroScans were first used in 2017, so the investigators had 3 years of FibroScan data with which to validate the score.
The researchers extrapolated the NHANES sample data to the U.S. population. They found that the proportion of adults with steatosis (CAP score > 274 dB/m) and significant fibrosis (LSM > 8.0 kPa) was 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.0%- 44.3%) and 8.9% (7.6%-10.2%), respectively. In addition, 11.3% (10.2%-12.5%) of the adult U.S. population demonstrated a significant amount of alcohol use, 2.3% (1.4%-3.3%) showed evidence of hepatitis B or C, and 5.4% (4.6%-6.2%) had elevated serum ferritin levels.
The researchers then stratified the patients according to previously defined SAFE tiers of low, intermediate, and high risk and projected findings to the U.S. general population.
“When we applied our score to the general population, we found multiple abnormalities in the high-risk groups [SAFE >100] having Fibroscan data that are consistent with stage 2 or higher fibrosis regardless of etiology, “Dr. Kim pointed out.
Results also showed that very few patients with SAFE less than 0 had liver fibrosis (4% among those with liver stiffness measure [LSM] > 8kPa, and 0.8% with LSM > 12kPa). Among those with SAFE > 100, nearly a third (31.5%) had LSM of > 8kPa, and 16.5% had LSM > 12kPa.
In addition to fibrosis, liver abnormalities were common among patients with SAFE greater than 100, including steatosis (68.0%), viral hepatitis (7.0%), and abnormal ferritin levels (12.9%); 10.8% of these patients used alcohol.
“Right now, some patients are referred, but on examination and FibroScan, they might actually be okay, so it it’s a waste of time and money for everyone. We can preempt all of this by doing a blood test and focusing on those people who really need a scan,” said Dr. Kim.
The researcher is now working with primary care colleagues to help further develop and integrate SAFE into the primary care setting.
Fibrosis score in patients with metabolic dysfunction
Also presenting at the same session on population health was Willem Pieter Brouwer, MD, PhD, from Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported results of a validation study of a new risk score – the Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fibrosis–5 (MAF-5) score – for use for people with metabolic dysfunction who are recommended for screening for liver fibrosis.
“We believe the MAF-5 score may be a good alternative to the FIB-4 [a liver fibrosis biomarker] for use in the referral pathway for liver health evaluation,” remarked Dr. Brouwer. “The clinical practice guidelines recommend using FIB-4 scores, but these have a poor-moderate performance in the population setting.
“We developed and validated our score in a population of 5,500 from the NHANES 2017-2020 cycle and validated the score in populations from Rotterdam, which is a cohort of elderly participants, and in fibrosis among patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from Colombia and Belgium,” he explained.
He also validated the score against different existing scoring systems and different methods of measuring liver stiffness and validated it for prognostic use to predict all-cause mortality in the NHANES III cohort.
Dr. Brouwer removed age as a factor of his new MAF-5 score; the score is thus stable for patients of all ages and is suitable for detecting liver disease in younger patients. “This is very important because these patients are currently underserved and have the most years of life to win.”
Referring to the SAFE score discussed by Dr. Kim, as well as other scores, he said, “The FIB-4, SAFE, and NFS [NAFLD fibrosis score] all include age in the scores, which causes problems and limitations in aging populations, as more and more patients will be referred due to an increasing score. Hence, the elderly are mostly all referred for liver checkups.”
Dr. Kim and Dr. Brouwer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – An algorithm, the Steatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator (SAFE), was developed to detect clinically significant fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). It is effective at detecting chronic liver disease from all causes with or without NAFLD in the general population, according the results of a U.S. population-based study. The algorithm was designed for use in primary care to help slow the steep rise in liver disease burden.
On the basis of the SAFE score, 61.3% of participants were at low risk for clinically significant fibrosis; 11.2% were at high risk; and 27.5% were at intermediate risk. Upon validation, very few of the low-risk participants had liver fibrosis, while nearly a third of those with a high-risk score had clinically significant fibrosis. In addition, a high percentage of the patients with high-risk SAFE scores had viral hepatitis and elevations in ferritin level.
“This is the first time that there has been a test that provides a score to detect low-risk liver disease in primary care,” said Ray Kim, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, senior investigator, who was speaking to this news organization at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver
“Primary care doctors currently detect liver disease through a serendipitous abnormal finding on ultrasound or blood tests that detect elevated transaminases, and then the patient is referred to a hepatologist, who figures out what is really going on,” said Dr. Kim.
“This approach is limited, so we need to get SAFE into primary care so these doctors can automatically calculate their scores, and if the patient is over 100 [high risk of chronic liver disease], then they need help [referral to a hepatologist].”
Liver deaths sharply rising
Public health data show that more people are dying of liver disease today than previously. Deaths in the United States have doubled over the past 20 years, said Dr. Kim. “If our mission is to help these patients and prevent death, [things are] moving in the wrong direction.”
He stressed that in order to change the direction, “primary care doctors need to engage with the issue and have appropriate tools to identify people with liver disease.”
Most often, the reason for this rise in deaths is that cases are being diagnosed at advanced stages of disease in which reversibility is limited, he added. “We want to move upstream where people might have early-stage disease and where we can intervene and make a difference.”
In an effort to help earlier detection of liver disease, the SAFE score was developed and validated by Dr. Kim and his colleagues to detect clinically significant (greater than stage 2) fibrosis in patients with NAFLD in primary care. The score is based upon age, body mass index, diabetes, platelet level, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels, and globulin level. A score of less than zero signifies that a patient is at low risk for liver fibrosis, while a score greater than 100 signifies a high risk of fibrosis. A score between 0 and 99 denotes intermediate risk of fibrosis.
“Unlike other noninvasive tests that detect advanced fibrosis, this one detects early-stage fibrosis. We’ve shown that the SAFE estimator is better than all other blood-based markers,” explained Dr. Kim.
Applying SAFE to the general population
In the study presented here at EASL, Dr. Kim aimed to expand the horizon for SAFE testing to the U.S. general population and to assess whether SAFE was effective in screening for chronic liver disease regardless of steatosis of the liver.
Together with first author Nakia Chung, MD, also from Stanford University, Dr. Kim applied the SAFE score to data from 7,156 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2017-2020. NHANES is representative of the noninstitutionalized, civilian population of the United States. It includes broad demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, including transient elastography data. FibroScans were first used in 2017, so the investigators had 3 years of FibroScan data with which to validate the score.
The researchers extrapolated the NHANES sample data to the U.S. population. They found that the proportion of adults with steatosis (CAP score > 274 dB/m) and significant fibrosis (LSM > 8.0 kPa) was 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.0%- 44.3%) and 8.9% (7.6%-10.2%), respectively. In addition, 11.3% (10.2%-12.5%) of the adult U.S. population demonstrated a significant amount of alcohol use, 2.3% (1.4%-3.3%) showed evidence of hepatitis B or C, and 5.4% (4.6%-6.2%) had elevated serum ferritin levels.
The researchers then stratified the patients according to previously defined SAFE tiers of low, intermediate, and high risk and projected findings to the U.S. general population.
“When we applied our score to the general population, we found multiple abnormalities in the high-risk groups [SAFE >100] having Fibroscan data that are consistent with stage 2 or higher fibrosis regardless of etiology, “Dr. Kim pointed out.
Results also showed that very few patients with SAFE less than 0 had liver fibrosis (4% among those with liver stiffness measure [LSM] > 8kPa, and 0.8% with LSM > 12kPa). Among those with SAFE > 100, nearly a third (31.5%) had LSM of > 8kPa, and 16.5% had LSM > 12kPa.
In addition to fibrosis, liver abnormalities were common among patients with SAFE greater than 100, including steatosis (68.0%), viral hepatitis (7.0%), and abnormal ferritin levels (12.9%); 10.8% of these patients used alcohol.
“Right now, some patients are referred, but on examination and FibroScan, they might actually be okay, so it it’s a waste of time and money for everyone. We can preempt all of this by doing a blood test and focusing on those people who really need a scan,” said Dr. Kim.
The researcher is now working with primary care colleagues to help further develop and integrate SAFE into the primary care setting.
Fibrosis score in patients with metabolic dysfunction
Also presenting at the same session on population health was Willem Pieter Brouwer, MD, PhD, from Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported results of a validation study of a new risk score – the Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fibrosis–5 (MAF-5) score – for use for people with metabolic dysfunction who are recommended for screening for liver fibrosis.
“We believe the MAF-5 score may be a good alternative to the FIB-4 [a liver fibrosis biomarker] for use in the referral pathway for liver health evaluation,” remarked Dr. Brouwer. “The clinical practice guidelines recommend using FIB-4 scores, but these have a poor-moderate performance in the population setting.
“We developed and validated our score in a population of 5,500 from the NHANES 2017-2020 cycle and validated the score in populations from Rotterdam, which is a cohort of elderly participants, and in fibrosis among patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from Colombia and Belgium,” he explained.
He also validated the score against different existing scoring systems and different methods of measuring liver stiffness and validated it for prognostic use to predict all-cause mortality in the NHANES III cohort.
Dr. Brouwer removed age as a factor of his new MAF-5 score; the score is thus stable for patients of all ages and is suitable for detecting liver disease in younger patients. “This is very important because these patients are currently underserved and have the most years of life to win.”
Referring to the SAFE score discussed by Dr. Kim, as well as other scores, he said, “The FIB-4, SAFE, and NFS [NAFLD fibrosis score] all include age in the scores, which causes problems and limitations in aging populations, as more and more patients will be referred due to an increasing score. Hence, the elderly are mostly all referred for liver checkups.”
Dr. Kim and Dr. Brouwer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – An algorithm, the Steatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator (SAFE), was developed to detect clinically significant fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). It is effective at detecting chronic liver disease from all causes with or without NAFLD in the general population, according the results of a U.S. population-based study. The algorithm was designed for use in primary care to help slow the steep rise in liver disease burden.
On the basis of the SAFE score, 61.3% of participants were at low risk for clinically significant fibrosis; 11.2% were at high risk; and 27.5% were at intermediate risk. Upon validation, very few of the low-risk participants had liver fibrosis, while nearly a third of those with a high-risk score had clinically significant fibrosis. In addition, a high percentage of the patients with high-risk SAFE scores had viral hepatitis and elevations in ferritin level.
“This is the first time that there has been a test that provides a score to detect low-risk liver disease in primary care,” said Ray Kim, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University, senior investigator, who was speaking to this news organization at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver
“Primary care doctors currently detect liver disease through a serendipitous abnormal finding on ultrasound or blood tests that detect elevated transaminases, and then the patient is referred to a hepatologist, who figures out what is really going on,” said Dr. Kim.
“This approach is limited, so we need to get SAFE into primary care so these doctors can automatically calculate their scores, and if the patient is over 100 [high risk of chronic liver disease], then they need help [referral to a hepatologist].”
Liver deaths sharply rising
Public health data show that more people are dying of liver disease today than previously. Deaths in the United States have doubled over the past 20 years, said Dr. Kim. “If our mission is to help these patients and prevent death, [things are] moving in the wrong direction.”
He stressed that in order to change the direction, “primary care doctors need to engage with the issue and have appropriate tools to identify people with liver disease.”
Most often, the reason for this rise in deaths is that cases are being diagnosed at advanced stages of disease in which reversibility is limited, he added. “We want to move upstream where people might have early-stage disease and where we can intervene and make a difference.”
In an effort to help earlier detection of liver disease, the SAFE score was developed and validated by Dr. Kim and his colleagues to detect clinically significant (greater than stage 2) fibrosis in patients with NAFLD in primary care. The score is based upon age, body mass index, diabetes, platelet level, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels, and globulin level. A score of less than zero signifies that a patient is at low risk for liver fibrosis, while a score greater than 100 signifies a high risk of fibrosis. A score between 0 and 99 denotes intermediate risk of fibrosis.
“Unlike other noninvasive tests that detect advanced fibrosis, this one detects early-stage fibrosis. We’ve shown that the SAFE estimator is better than all other blood-based markers,” explained Dr. Kim.
Applying SAFE to the general population
In the study presented here at EASL, Dr. Kim aimed to expand the horizon for SAFE testing to the U.S. general population and to assess whether SAFE was effective in screening for chronic liver disease regardless of steatosis of the liver.
Together with first author Nakia Chung, MD, also from Stanford University, Dr. Kim applied the SAFE score to data from 7,156 participants of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2017-2020. NHANES is representative of the noninstitutionalized, civilian population of the United States. It includes broad demographic, clinical, and laboratory data, including transient elastography data. FibroScans were first used in 2017, so the investigators had 3 years of FibroScan data with which to validate the score.
The researchers extrapolated the NHANES sample data to the U.S. population. They found that the proportion of adults with steatosis (CAP score > 274 dB/m) and significant fibrosis (LSM > 8.0 kPa) was 42.7% (95% confidence interval, 41.0%- 44.3%) and 8.9% (7.6%-10.2%), respectively. In addition, 11.3% (10.2%-12.5%) of the adult U.S. population demonstrated a significant amount of alcohol use, 2.3% (1.4%-3.3%) showed evidence of hepatitis B or C, and 5.4% (4.6%-6.2%) had elevated serum ferritin levels.
The researchers then stratified the patients according to previously defined SAFE tiers of low, intermediate, and high risk and projected findings to the U.S. general population.
“When we applied our score to the general population, we found multiple abnormalities in the high-risk groups [SAFE >100] having Fibroscan data that are consistent with stage 2 or higher fibrosis regardless of etiology, “Dr. Kim pointed out.
Results also showed that very few patients with SAFE less than 0 had liver fibrosis (4% among those with liver stiffness measure [LSM] > 8kPa, and 0.8% with LSM > 12kPa). Among those with SAFE > 100, nearly a third (31.5%) had LSM of > 8kPa, and 16.5% had LSM > 12kPa.
In addition to fibrosis, liver abnormalities were common among patients with SAFE greater than 100, including steatosis (68.0%), viral hepatitis (7.0%), and abnormal ferritin levels (12.9%); 10.8% of these patients used alcohol.
“Right now, some patients are referred, but on examination and FibroScan, they might actually be okay, so it it’s a waste of time and money for everyone. We can preempt all of this by doing a blood test and focusing on those people who really need a scan,” said Dr. Kim.
The researcher is now working with primary care colleagues to help further develop and integrate SAFE into the primary care setting.
Fibrosis score in patients with metabolic dysfunction
Also presenting at the same session on population health was Willem Pieter Brouwer, MD, PhD, from Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. He reported results of a validation study of a new risk score – the Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fibrosis–5 (MAF-5) score – for use for people with metabolic dysfunction who are recommended for screening for liver fibrosis.
“We believe the MAF-5 score may be a good alternative to the FIB-4 [a liver fibrosis biomarker] for use in the referral pathway for liver health evaluation,” remarked Dr. Brouwer. “The clinical practice guidelines recommend using FIB-4 scores, but these have a poor-moderate performance in the population setting.
“We developed and validated our score in a population of 5,500 from the NHANES 2017-2020 cycle and validated the score in populations from Rotterdam, which is a cohort of elderly participants, and in fibrosis among patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from Colombia and Belgium,” he explained.
He also validated the score against different existing scoring systems and different methods of measuring liver stiffness and validated it for prognostic use to predict all-cause mortality in the NHANES III cohort.
Dr. Brouwer removed age as a factor of his new MAF-5 score; the score is thus stable for patients of all ages and is suitable for detecting liver disease in younger patients. “This is very important because these patients are currently underserved and have the most years of life to win.”
Referring to the SAFE score discussed by Dr. Kim, as well as other scores, he said, “The FIB-4, SAFE, and NFS [NAFLD fibrosis score] all include age in the scores, which causes problems and limitations in aging populations, as more and more patients will be referred due to an increasing score. Hence, the elderly are mostly all referred for liver checkups.”
Dr. Kim and Dr. Brouwer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ILC 2023
‘Exciting time for NASH’ with resmetirom phase 3 results
VIENNA – Resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and reduction of fibrosis on liver biopsy were achieved with the oral, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) in patients with NASH and associated cirrhosis in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. The primary results of the MAESTRO-NASH (NCT03900429) trial were reported at the European Association for the Study of the Liver Congress 2023.
Both doses of resmetirom – 80 mg and 100 mg – met the primary endpoints of NASH resolution and no worsening of fibrosis on liver biopsy. The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also achieved with statistical significance. Likewise, improvement was seen in liver enzymes, and liver and spleen volumes.
In the intent-to-treat population, NASH resolution was achieved in 26% (P < .0001) in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 30% (P < .0001) in the 100-mg group, and 10% in those taking placebo. And ≥ 1-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) was achieved by 24% (P < .0002), 26% (P < .0001), and 14% in these groups respectively.
The investigational, liver-directed agent, designed to improve NASH by increasing hepatic fat metabolism and reducing lipotoxicity, was well tolerated overall with a favorable safety profile.
“This is an exciting time for NASH because we are at the forefront of having a drug to treat these patients, and the benefit to patients promises to be huge,” asserted Stephen Harrison, MD, principal investigator of the MAESTRO studies, gastroenterologist and hepatologist, and founder of Pinnacle Clinical Research, San Antonio, in reporting 52-week results.
“This is the first treatment to achieve meaningful effects on both primary liver biopsy endpoints – disease activity and fibrosis – which is absolutely critical because fibrosis pertains to a worse prognosis. [These results] are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit in a phase 3 trial in patients with NASH,” he added.
FDA-chosen endpoints likely to predict clinical outcomes
The ongoing 54-month, phase 3, registrational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involved taking liver biopsies from 966 patients at around 200 global sites. Biopsy readings were taken by two pathologists that were then combined into a single treatment effect.
Patients had biopsy-proven NASH with fibrosis stages F1B, F2, or F3, the presence of three or more metabolic risk factors, a FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) score of 8.5 kPa or more, baseline MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) of 8% or more, and a NAS score of 4 or more with at least 1 in each NAS component. Around 65% of participants had type 2 diabetes, between 13% and 16% were taking glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and 46%-51% were taking statins.
Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily resmetirom 80 mg or 100 mg orally or to placebo and treated for 52 weeks.
Both liver histological improvement primary endpoints at week-52 were proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and as such support accelerated approval for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. These primary endpoints were NASH resolution (ballooning 0, inflammation 0/1) with ≥ 2-point improvement in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, and ≥ 1-stage reduction in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS.
Patients on resmetirom showed improvement in NAS components and fibrosis, and less worsening of NAS and fibrosis, compared with placebo. Percentage improvement was seen in 31%, 33%, and 15% of patients on 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg resmetirom, and placebo respectively; no change was seen in 51%, 48%, and 51% respectively; and worsening was seen in 18%, 19%, and 34% respectively.
The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also met. “There was a significant effect of resmetirom 80 and 100 mg on multiple atherogenic lipids/lipoproteins at both week 24 and 52,” reported Dr. Harrison. The 52-week percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol was –14%, –20%, and 0% for the 80-mg resmetirom group, the 100-mg group, and the placebo group respectively.
“We also saw a significant reduction in liver enzymes [alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)] relative to placebo both in terms of percentage and absolute measures,” Dr. Harrison added. “[And] the change in liver enzymes was associated with the neutral biomarker that increases with resmetirom target engagement.”
Resmetirom at both doses also resulted in a significant effect on MRI-PDFF and Fibroscan CAP. At week 52, 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg, and placebo led to –42.1%, –51.4% and –10.4% change from baseline in MRI-PDFF, while Fibroscan CAP changed by –39.6%, –41.3%, and –14.5% respectively, reported Dr. Harrison. Liver volume dropped by –21.6% in the 80-mg group and –25.8% in the 100-mg group, compared with –1.0% in the placebo group. Spleen volume changed by –5.9%, –6.1%, and +3.2% respectively.
Liver stiffness, as measured by Fibroscan VCTE at week 52, changed from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.0 KPa (F3) at 80 mg, and from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.5 KPa (F2) and –3.3 KPa (F3) at the 100-mg dose.
Further analysis showed that improvements in fibrosis and NASH resolution were seen across all key subgroups, including baseline fibrosis stage (F2 or F3), NAS (< 6, ≥ 6), type 2 diabetes status, age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), and sex.
Safety profile
“The safety profile of resmetirom in the MAESTRO-NASH trial is consistent with previous phase 2/3 trials in which the most common adverse events were diarrhea and nausea at treatment initiation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Study discontinuations in the 100-mg group were increased relative to placebo during the first few weeks of treatment and were similar in all treatment groups up to 52 weeks. Discontinuations of patients on resmetirom 100 mg were mainly gastrointestinal related.
Phase 2 results of the serial liver biopsy trial in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH showed that resmetirom resolved NASH in a significantly greater percentage of patients and reduced liver enzymes, inflammatory biomarkers, and fibrosis, compared with placebo.
“We’ve been waiting for a long, long time for a therapy for these patients because until now, they have been challenged with lifestyle modifications to lose and maintain weight,” said Dr. Harrison. “There’s been a delay in identifying patients with this disease because we’ve had no treatment, but now that we are on the forefront of a treatment, it allows clinicians to open their minds to the possibility of identifying these patients.”
Dr. Harrison noted that a limitation of these data was the lack of clinical outcomes data to correlate with the biopsy data; however, the MAESTRO-NASH trial will continue to 54 months to accrue and evaluate clinical outcomes.
Milan Mishkovikj, MSc, board director of the European Liver Patients Association, Bitola, North Macedonia, commented on the potential benefit of this drug for patients. “Adhering to a healthy lifestyle is not always easy – not in all countries – so it’s encouraging to have a drug that hopefully is affordable and accessible to us. Now we need to manage the expectations of patients and caregivers.”
EASL’s vice secretary Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and head of hepatology at University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Odense University Hospital remarked, “This is so exciting. This phase 3 trial is a real game-changer in the field of fatty liver disease because it has nearly 1,000 patients over 52 weeks of treatment.”
Madrigal Pharmaceuticals plans to submit an application to the FDA by end of the second quarter with a priority review.
Dr. Harrison is founder of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience, and participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens, all outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens. Dr. Mishkovikj has declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – Resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and reduction of fibrosis on liver biopsy were achieved with the oral, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) in patients with NASH and associated cirrhosis in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. The primary results of the MAESTRO-NASH (NCT03900429) trial were reported at the European Association for the Study of the Liver Congress 2023.
Both doses of resmetirom – 80 mg and 100 mg – met the primary endpoints of NASH resolution and no worsening of fibrosis on liver biopsy. The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also achieved with statistical significance. Likewise, improvement was seen in liver enzymes, and liver and spleen volumes.
In the intent-to-treat population, NASH resolution was achieved in 26% (P < .0001) in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 30% (P < .0001) in the 100-mg group, and 10% in those taking placebo. And ≥ 1-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) was achieved by 24% (P < .0002), 26% (P < .0001), and 14% in these groups respectively.
The investigational, liver-directed agent, designed to improve NASH by increasing hepatic fat metabolism and reducing lipotoxicity, was well tolerated overall with a favorable safety profile.
“This is an exciting time for NASH because we are at the forefront of having a drug to treat these patients, and the benefit to patients promises to be huge,” asserted Stephen Harrison, MD, principal investigator of the MAESTRO studies, gastroenterologist and hepatologist, and founder of Pinnacle Clinical Research, San Antonio, in reporting 52-week results.
“This is the first treatment to achieve meaningful effects on both primary liver biopsy endpoints – disease activity and fibrosis – which is absolutely critical because fibrosis pertains to a worse prognosis. [These results] are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit in a phase 3 trial in patients with NASH,” he added.
FDA-chosen endpoints likely to predict clinical outcomes
The ongoing 54-month, phase 3, registrational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involved taking liver biopsies from 966 patients at around 200 global sites. Biopsy readings were taken by two pathologists that were then combined into a single treatment effect.
Patients had biopsy-proven NASH with fibrosis stages F1B, F2, or F3, the presence of three or more metabolic risk factors, a FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) score of 8.5 kPa or more, baseline MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) of 8% or more, and a NAS score of 4 or more with at least 1 in each NAS component. Around 65% of participants had type 2 diabetes, between 13% and 16% were taking glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and 46%-51% were taking statins.
Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily resmetirom 80 mg or 100 mg orally or to placebo and treated for 52 weeks.
Both liver histological improvement primary endpoints at week-52 were proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and as such support accelerated approval for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. These primary endpoints were NASH resolution (ballooning 0, inflammation 0/1) with ≥ 2-point improvement in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, and ≥ 1-stage reduction in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS.
Patients on resmetirom showed improvement in NAS components and fibrosis, and less worsening of NAS and fibrosis, compared with placebo. Percentage improvement was seen in 31%, 33%, and 15% of patients on 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg resmetirom, and placebo respectively; no change was seen in 51%, 48%, and 51% respectively; and worsening was seen in 18%, 19%, and 34% respectively.
The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also met. “There was a significant effect of resmetirom 80 and 100 mg on multiple atherogenic lipids/lipoproteins at both week 24 and 52,” reported Dr. Harrison. The 52-week percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol was –14%, –20%, and 0% for the 80-mg resmetirom group, the 100-mg group, and the placebo group respectively.
“We also saw a significant reduction in liver enzymes [alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)] relative to placebo both in terms of percentage and absolute measures,” Dr. Harrison added. “[And] the change in liver enzymes was associated with the neutral biomarker that increases with resmetirom target engagement.”
Resmetirom at both doses also resulted in a significant effect on MRI-PDFF and Fibroscan CAP. At week 52, 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg, and placebo led to –42.1%, –51.4% and –10.4% change from baseline in MRI-PDFF, while Fibroscan CAP changed by –39.6%, –41.3%, and –14.5% respectively, reported Dr. Harrison. Liver volume dropped by –21.6% in the 80-mg group and –25.8% in the 100-mg group, compared with –1.0% in the placebo group. Spleen volume changed by –5.9%, –6.1%, and +3.2% respectively.
Liver stiffness, as measured by Fibroscan VCTE at week 52, changed from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.0 KPa (F3) at 80 mg, and from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.5 KPa (F2) and –3.3 KPa (F3) at the 100-mg dose.
Further analysis showed that improvements in fibrosis and NASH resolution were seen across all key subgroups, including baseline fibrosis stage (F2 or F3), NAS (< 6, ≥ 6), type 2 diabetes status, age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), and sex.
Safety profile
“The safety profile of resmetirom in the MAESTRO-NASH trial is consistent with previous phase 2/3 trials in which the most common adverse events were diarrhea and nausea at treatment initiation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Study discontinuations in the 100-mg group were increased relative to placebo during the first few weeks of treatment and were similar in all treatment groups up to 52 weeks. Discontinuations of patients on resmetirom 100 mg were mainly gastrointestinal related.
Phase 2 results of the serial liver biopsy trial in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH showed that resmetirom resolved NASH in a significantly greater percentage of patients and reduced liver enzymes, inflammatory biomarkers, and fibrosis, compared with placebo.
“We’ve been waiting for a long, long time for a therapy for these patients because until now, they have been challenged with lifestyle modifications to lose and maintain weight,” said Dr. Harrison. “There’s been a delay in identifying patients with this disease because we’ve had no treatment, but now that we are on the forefront of a treatment, it allows clinicians to open their minds to the possibility of identifying these patients.”
Dr. Harrison noted that a limitation of these data was the lack of clinical outcomes data to correlate with the biopsy data; however, the MAESTRO-NASH trial will continue to 54 months to accrue and evaluate clinical outcomes.
Milan Mishkovikj, MSc, board director of the European Liver Patients Association, Bitola, North Macedonia, commented on the potential benefit of this drug for patients. “Adhering to a healthy lifestyle is not always easy – not in all countries – so it’s encouraging to have a drug that hopefully is affordable and accessible to us. Now we need to manage the expectations of patients and caregivers.”
EASL’s vice secretary Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and head of hepatology at University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Odense University Hospital remarked, “This is so exciting. This phase 3 trial is a real game-changer in the field of fatty liver disease because it has nearly 1,000 patients over 52 weeks of treatment.”
Madrigal Pharmaceuticals plans to submit an application to the FDA by end of the second quarter with a priority review.
Dr. Harrison is founder of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience, and participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens, all outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens. Dr. Mishkovikj has declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – Resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and reduction of fibrosis on liver biopsy were achieved with the oral, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) in patients with NASH and associated cirrhosis in a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. The primary results of the MAESTRO-NASH (NCT03900429) trial were reported at the European Association for the Study of the Liver Congress 2023.
Both doses of resmetirom – 80 mg and 100 mg – met the primary endpoints of NASH resolution and no worsening of fibrosis on liver biopsy. The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also achieved with statistical significance. Likewise, improvement was seen in liver enzymes, and liver and spleen volumes.
In the intent-to-treat population, NASH resolution was achieved in 26% (P < .0001) in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 30% (P < .0001) in the 100-mg group, and 10% in those taking placebo. And ≥ 1-stage improvement in fibrosis with no worsening of the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (NAS) was achieved by 24% (P < .0002), 26% (P < .0001), and 14% in these groups respectively.
The investigational, liver-directed agent, designed to improve NASH by increasing hepatic fat metabolism and reducing lipotoxicity, was well tolerated overall with a favorable safety profile.
“This is an exciting time for NASH because we are at the forefront of having a drug to treat these patients, and the benefit to patients promises to be huge,” asserted Stephen Harrison, MD, principal investigator of the MAESTRO studies, gastroenterologist and hepatologist, and founder of Pinnacle Clinical Research, San Antonio, in reporting 52-week results.
“This is the first treatment to achieve meaningful effects on both primary liver biopsy endpoints – disease activity and fibrosis – which is absolutely critical because fibrosis pertains to a worse prognosis. [These results] are reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit in a phase 3 trial in patients with NASH,” he added.
FDA-chosen endpoints likely to predict clinical outcomes
The ongoing 54-month, phase 3, registrational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involved taking liver biopsies from 966 patients at around 200 global sites. Biopsy readings were taken by two pathologists that were then combined into a single treatment effect.
Patients had biopsy-proven NASH with fibrosis stages F1B, F2, or F3, the presence of three or more metabolic risk factors, a FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) score of 8.5 kPa or more, baseline MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF) of 8% or more, and a NAS score of 4 or more with at least 1 in each NAS component. Around 65% of participants had type 2 diabetes, between 13% and 16% were taking glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and 46%-51% were taking statins.
Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily resmetirom 80 mg or 100 mg orally or to placebo and treated for 52 weeks.
Both liver histological improvement primary endpoints at week-52 were proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit and as such support accelerated approval for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. These primary endpoints were NASH resolution (ballooning 0, inflammation 0/1) with ≥ 2-point improvement in NAS with no worsening of fibrosis, and ≥ 1-stage reduction in fibrosis with no worsening of NAS.
Patients on resmetirom showed improvement in NAS components and fibrosis, and less worsening of NAS and fibrosis, compared with placebo. Percentage improvement was seen in 31%, 33%, and 15% of patients on 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg resmetirom, and placebo respectively; no change was seen in 51%, 48%, and 51% respectively; and worsening was seen in 18%, 19%, and 34% respectively.
The key secondary endpoint of LDL cholesterol lowering was also met. “There was a significant effect of resmetirom 80 and 100 mg on multiple atherogenic lipids/lipoproteins at both week 24 and 52,” reported Dr. Harrison. The 52-week percentage change from baseline in LDL cholesterol was –14%, –20%, and 0% for the 80-mg resmetirom group, the 100-mg group, and the placebo group respectively.
“We also saw a significant reduction in liver enzymes [alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)] relative to placebo both in terms of percentage and absolute measures,” Dr. Harrison added. “[And] the change in liver enzymes was associated with the neutral biomarker that increases with resmetirom target engagement.”
Resmetirom at both doses also resulted in a significant effect on MRI-PDFF and Fibroscan CAP. At week 52, 80 mg resmetirom, 100 mg, and placebo led to –42.1%, –51.4% and –10.4% change from baseline in MRI-PDFF, while Fibroscan CAP changed by –39.6%, –41.3%, and –14.5% respectively, reported Dr. Harrison. Liver volume dropped by –21.6% in the 80-mg group and –25.8% in the 100-mg group, compared with –1.0% in the placebo group. Spleen volume changed by –5.9%, –6.1%, and +3.2% respectively.
Liver stiffness, as measured by Fibroscan VCTE at week 52, changed from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.0 KPa (F3) at 80 mg, and from –3.7 KPa (F1B) to –2.5 KPa (F2) and –3.3 KPa (F3) at the 100-mg dose.
Further analysis showed that improvements in fibrosis and NASH resolution were seen across all key subgroups, including baseline fibrosis stage (F2 or F3), NAS (< 6, ≥ 6), type 2 diabetes status, age (< 65 years, ≥ 65 years), and sex.
Safety profile
“The safety profile of resmetirom in the MAESTRO-NASH trial is consistent with previous phase 2/3 trials in which the most common adverse events were diarrhea and nausea at treatment initiation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Study discontinuations in the 100-mg group were increased relative to placebo during the first few weeks of treatment and were similar in all treatment groups up to 52 weeks. Discontinuations of patients on resmetirom 100 mg were mainly gastrointestinal related.
Phase 2 results of the serial liver biopsy trial in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH showed that resmetirom resolved NASH in a significantly greater percentage of patients and reduced liver enzymes, inflammatory biomarkers, and fibrosis, compared with placebo.
“We’ve been waiting for a long, long time for a therapy for these patients because until now, they have been challenged with lifestyle modifications to lose and maintain weight,” said Dr. Harrison. “There’s been a delay in identifying patients with this disease because we’ve had no treatment, but now that we are on the forefront of a treatment, it allows clinicians to open their minds to the possibility of identifying these patients.”
Dr. Harrison noted that a limitation of these data was the lack of clinical outcomes data to correlate with the biopsy data; however, the MAESTRO-NASH trial will continue to 54 months to accrue and evaluate clinical outcomes.
Milan Mishkovikj, MSc, board director of the European Liver Patients Association, Bitola, North Macedonia, commented on the potential benefit of this drug for patients. “Adhering to a healthy lifestyle is not always easy – not in all countries – so it’s encouraging to have a drug that hopefully is affordable and accessible to us. Now we need to manage the expectations of patients and caregivers.”
EASL’s vice secretary Aleksander Krag, MD, PhD, professor and head of hepatology at University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Odense University Hospital remarked, “This is so exciting. This phase 3 trial is a real game-changer in the field of fatty liver disease because it has nearly 1,000 patients over 52 weeks of treatment.”
Madrigal Pharmaceuticals plans to submit an application to the FDA by end of the second quarter with a priority review.
Dr. Harrison is founder of Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Krag has served as speaker for Norgine, Siemens, and Nordic Bioscience, and participated in advisory boards for Norgine and Siemens, all outside the submitted work. He receives royalties from Gyldendal and Echosens. Dr. Mishkovikj has declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New EULAR lupus recommendations advise using biologics, tapering steroids
MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).
Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.
The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.
“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.
Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.
Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”
Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.
Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics
Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.
Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.
But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”
This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).
“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”
Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”
Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.
Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”
Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
Lupus nephritis
Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.
Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”
He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.
“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”
Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.
Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.
Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations
Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.
There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.
Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.
“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.
Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.
MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).
Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.
The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.
“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.
Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.
Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”
Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.
Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics
Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.
Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.
But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”
This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).
“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”
Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”
Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.
Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”
Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
Lupus nephritis
Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.
Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”
He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.
“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”
Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.
Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.
Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations
Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.
There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.
Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.
“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.
Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.
MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).
Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.
The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.
“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.
Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.
Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”
Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.
Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics
Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.
Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.
But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”
This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).
“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”
Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”
Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.
Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”
Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
Lupus nephritis
Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.
Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).
“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”
He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.
“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”
Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.
Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.
Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations
Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.
There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.
Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.
“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.
Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.
AT EULAR 2023
Investigational uricase-based gout drug meets primary endpoints in phase 3 trials
MILAN – Serum uric acid of less than 6 mg/dL was achieved and maintained for a substantial period of time with a once-monthly infusion of SEL-212 in patients with refractory gout, according to results of the two phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials.
Both trials met their primary endpoints. In DISSOLVE I – the U.S. study – 56% of patients on SEL-212 at 0.15 mg/kg (high dose) achieved a response, defined as achievement and maintenance of a reduction in serum urate to less than 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II – the global study – 46% of patients on SEL-212 on the 0.15-mg/kg dose achieved response.
In participants aged 50 years or older, there was a statistically significant higher response rate at the high dose of SEL-212 in both DISSOLVE I and II of 65% and 47%, respectively, compared with placebo.
Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, and principal investigator of the DISSOLVE program, presented results of the two phase 3 trials during a late-breaking session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The top-line data from the two SEL-212 phase 3 studies are encouraging. They show that induction of immunotolerance with an infusion of a rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (SEL-110), followed immediately by an infusion of pegadricase, a potent but immunogenic uricase, allows for a strong and sustained uric acid–lowering effect without the development of anti-drug antibodies,” Dr. Baraf said in an interview.
SEL-212 is a monthly two-part infusion therapy – a combination of Selecta Biosciences’s ImmTOR immune tolerance platform, and a therapeutic uricase enzyme (pegadricase), designed to treat refractory gout. SEL-110 (ImmTOR) is an immune-tolerizing, nanoencapsulated rapamycin administered 30 minutes before pegadricase and inhibits anti-pegadricase antibodies. SEL-37 is a pegylated uricase (pegadricase) that converts uric acid to excretable allantoin.
SEL-212 was originally developed by Selecta. Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) licensed SEL-212 from Selecta in June 2020 and is responsible for development, regulatory, and commercial activities in all markets outside of China. Selecta is responsible for ImmTOR manufacturing. The phase 3 program for SEL-212 was run by Selecta and funded by Sobi.
It is understood that a biologic license application will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, most likely next year, and if approved, “the SEL-212 two-component infusion treatment would provide a monthly alternative to twice-monthly pegloticase, for patients with refractory gout,” Dr. Baraf added.
Details of the trials
The two DISSOLVE studies replicate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with chronic refractory gout. DISSOLVE I was carried out in 112 patients across 29 sites in the United States, and DISSOLVE II tested the two-part treatment in 153 patients across 37 sites in the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia.
Both studies randomized patients 1:1:1 to a high dose (SEL-110 of 0.15 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), low dose (SEL-110 of 0.1 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), or placebo (saline) infused every 28 days for 6 months. Prophylaxis against infusion reactions and gout flares were given to all participants.
Adult patients had a 10- to 14-year history of symptomatic gout, with three or more flares over the 18 months prior to screening, or one or more tophus, or a diagnosis of gouty arthritis. They were also required to have chronic refractory gout with a failure to normalize serum uric acid with any xanthine oxidase inhibitor (for example, allopurinol) and to have not been previously exposed to uricase-based therapy. Serum uric acid had to be at least 7 mg/dL. Participants were balanced for age, body mass index, and sex across treatment groups. Gout severity was greater in DISSOLVE II, Dr. Baraf reported.
Both studies treated patients for 6 months, but DISSOLVE 1 continued with a 6-month, blinded safety extension. The primary endpoint in both studies was serum urate control during month 6, and secondary endpoints included tender and swollen joint counts, tophus burden, patient-reported outcomes of activity limitation, quality of life, and gout flare incidence.
In DISSOLVE I, patients on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 56% with the high dose (P < .0001) and 48% with the low dose (P < .0001), compared with 4% of patients randomized to receive placebo. In DISSOLVE II, participants on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 46% with the high dose (P = .0002) and 40% with the low dose (P = .0008), compared with 11% of patients randomized to receive placebo.
“We also saw significant reductions in serum uric acid for all treatment groups, compared with placebo,” Dr. Baraf reported. Mean percentage change was –62.3% and –58.3% in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively, in DISSOLVE I, and –58.1% and –52.2% in DISSOLVE II, respectively.
SEL-212 had a favorable safety profile with adverse events as expected across both doses, including mild to moderate stomatitis (3.4% in the low-dose group and 9.2% in the high-dose group versus 0% in the placebo group), and a greater number of infusion reactions at 24 hours and 1 hour after drug administration in both treatment groups versus placebo. Six patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, including two cases of anaphylaxis and one gout flare in both the high- and low-dose treatment groups. The 6-month extension period in the DISSOLVE I trial showed that the majority (75%) of patients who completed 6 months of SEL-212 treatment as a responder continued to be successfully treated through 12 months with no infusion reactions or safety signals.
“I expect more data will be forthcoming on the important clinical secondary endpoints targeted by SEL-212 therapy,” Dr. Baraf noted.
Need control arm taking allopurinol?
Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, commented on the study methods after the presentation. “The major problem with this study is that they say the patients had had insufficient response to allopurinol, and my guess is most had received 100-200 mg of allopurinol but were not titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose,” he said, adding: “they should have had a control arm of patients on allopurinol and titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. So, I don’t know what this is really telling us with respect to allopurinol, which is a relatively cheap drug.”
Dr. Baraf reported consulting with Horizon, Sobi, and Selecta; serving on Horizon’s speakers bureau, and receiving grant/research support from Horizon and Sobi. Dr. Fleischmann reported no financial relationship of relevance to this study.
MILAN – Serum uric acid of less than 6 mg/dL was achieved and maintained for a substantial period of time with a once-monthly infusion of SEL-212 in patients with refractory gout, according to results of the two phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials.
Both trials met their primary endpoints. In DISSOLVE I – the U.S. study – 56% of patients on SEL-212 at 0.15 mg/kg (high dose) achieved a response, defined as achievement and maintenance of a reduction in serum urate to less than 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II – the global study – 46% of patients on SEL-212 on the 0.15-mg/kg dose achieved response.
In participants aged 50 years or older, there was a statistically significant higher response rate at the high dose of SEL-212 in both DISSOLVE I and II of 65% and 47%, respectively, compared with placebo.
Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, and principal investigator of the DISSOLVE program, presented results of the two phase 3 trials during a late-breaking session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The top-line data from the two SEL-212 phase 3 studies are encouraging. They show that induction of immunotolerance with an infusion of a rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (SEL-110), followed immediately by an infusion of pegadricase, a potent but immunogenic uricase, allows for a strong and sustained uric acid–lowering effect without the development of anti-drug antibodies,” Dr. Baraf said in an interview.
SEL-212 is a monthly two-part infusion therapy – a combination of Selecta Biosciences’s ImmTOR immune tolerance platform, and a therapeutic uricase enzyme (pegadricase), designed to treat refractory gout. SEL-110 (ImmTOR) is an immune-tolerizing, nanoencapsulated rapamycin administered 30 minutes before pegadricase and inhibits anti-pegadricase antibodies. SEL-37 is a pegylated uricase (pegadricase) that converts uric acid to excretable allantoin.
SEL-212 was originally developed by Selecta. Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) licensed SEL-212 from Selecta in June 2020 and is responsible for development, regulatory, and commercial activities in all markets outside of China. Selecta is responsible for ImmTOR manufacturing. The phase 3 program for SEL-212 was run by Selecta and funded by Sobi.
It is understood that a biologic license application will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, most likely next year, and if approved, “the SEL-212 two-component infusion treatment would provide a monthly alternative to twice-monthly pegloticase, for patients with refractory gout,” Dr. Baraf added.
Details of the trials
The two DISSOLVE studies replicate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with chronic refractory gout. DISSOLVE I was carried out in 112 patients across 29 sites in the United States, and DISSOLVE II tested the two-part treatment in 153 patients across 37 sites in the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia.
Both studies randomized patients 1:1:1 to a high dose (SEL-110 of 0.15 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), low dose (SEL-110 of 0.1 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), or placebo (saline) infused every 28 days for 6 months. Prophylaxis against infusion reactions and gout flares were given to all participants.
Adult patients had a 10- to 14-year history of symptomatic gout, with three or more flares over the 18 months prior to screening, or one or more tophus, or a diagnosis of gouty arthritis. They were also required to have chronic refractory gout with a failure to normalize serum uric acid with any xanthine oxidase inhibitor (for example, allopurinol) and to have not been previously exposed to uricase-based therapy. Serum uric acid had to be at least 7 mg/dL. Participants were balanced for age, body mass index, and sex across treatment groups. Gout severity was greater in DISSOLVE II, Dr. Baraf reported.
Both studies treated patients for 6 months, but DISSOLVE 1 continued with a 6-month, blinded safety extension. The primary endpoint in both studies was serum urate control during month 6, and secondary endpoints included tender and swollen joint counts, tophus burden, patient-reported outcomes of activity limitation, quality of life, and gout flare incidence.
In DISSOLVE I, patients on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 56% with the high dose (P < .0001) and 48% with the low dose (P < .0001), compared with 4% of patients randomized to receive placebo. In DISSOLVE II, participants on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 46% with the high dose (P = .0002) and 40% with the low dose (P = .0008), compared with 11% of patients randomized to receive placebo.
“We also saw significant reductions in serum uric acid for all treatment groups, compared with placebo,” Dr. Baraf reported. Mean percentage change was –62.3% and –58.3% in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively, in DISSOLVE I, and –58.1% and –52.2% in DISSOLVE II, respectively.
SEL-212 had a favorable safety profile with adverse events as expected across both doses, including mild to moderate stomatitis (3.4% in the low-dose group and 9.2% in the high-dose group versus 0% in the placebo group), and a greater number of infusion reactions at 24 hours and 1 hour after drug administration in both treatment groups versus placebo. Six patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, including two cases of anaphylaxis and one gout flare in both the high- and low-dose treatment groups. The 6-month extension period in the DISSOLVE I trial showed that the majority (75%) of patients who completed 6 months of SEL-212 treatment as a responder continued to be successfully treated through 12 months with no infusion reactions or safety signals.
“I expect more data will be forthcoming on the important clinical secondary endpoints targeted by SEL-212 therapy,” Dr. Baraf noted.
Need control arm taking allopurinol?
Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, commented on the study methods after the presentation. “The major problem with this study is that they say the patients had had insufficient response to allopurinol, and my guess is most had received 100-200 mg of allopurinol but were not titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose,” he said, adding: “they should have had a control arm of patients on allopurinol and titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. So, I don’t know what this is really telling us with respect to allopurinol, which is a relatively cheap drug.”
Dr. Baraf reported consulting with Horizon, Sobi, and Selecta; serving on Horizon’s speakers bureau, and receiving grant/research support from Horizon and Sobi. Dr. Fleischmann reported no financial relationship of relevance to this study.
MILAN – Serum uric acid of less than 6 mg/dL was achieved and maintained for a substantial period of time with a once-monthly infusion of SEL-212 in patients with refractory gout, according to results of the two phase 3 DISSOLVE I and II trials.
Both trials met their primary endpoints. In DISSOLVE I – the U.S. study – 56% of patients on SEL-212 at 0.15 mg/kg (high dose) achieved a response, defined as achievement and maintenance of a reduction in serum urate to less than 6 mg/dL for at least 80% of the time during month 6 of treatment. In DISSOLVE II – the global study – 46% of patients on SEL-212 on the 0.15-mg/kg dose achieved response.
In participants aged 50 years or older, there was a statistically significant higher response rate at the high dose of SEL-212 in both DISSOLVE I and II of 65% and 47%, respectively, compared with placebo.
Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, and principal investigator of the DISSOLVE program, presented results of the two phase 3 trials during a late-breaking session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The top-line data from the two SEL-212 phase 3 studies are encouraging. They show that induction of immunotolerance with an infusion of a rapamycin-containing nanoparticle (SEL-110), followed immediately by an infusion of pegadricase, a potent but immunogenic uricase, allows for a strong and sustained uric acid–lowering effect without the development of anti-drug antibodies,” Dr. Baraf said in an interview.
SEL-212 is a monthly two-part infusion therapy – a combination of Selecta Biosciences’s ImmTOR immune tolerance platform, and a therapeutic uricase enzyme (pegadricase), designed to treat refractory gout. SEL-110 (ImmTOR) is an immune-tolerizing, nanoencapsulated rapamycin administered 30 minutes before pegadricase and inhibits anti-pegadricase antibodies. SEL-37 is a pegylated uricase (pegadricase) that converts uric acid to excretable allantoin.
SEL-212 was originally developed by Selecta. Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (Sobi) licensed SEL-212 from Selecta in June 2020 and is responsible for development, regulatory, and commercial activities in all markets outside of China. Selecta is responsible for ImmTOR manufacturing. The phase 3 program for SEL-212 was run by Selecta and funded by Sobi.
It is understood that a biologic license application will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, most likely next year, and if approved, “the SEL-212 two-component infusion treatment would provide a monthly alternative to twice-monthly pegloticase, for patients with refractory gout,” Dr. Baraf added.
Details of the trials
The two DISSOLVE studies replicate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with chronic refractory gout. DISSOLVE I was carried out in 112 patients across 29 sites in the United States, and DISSOLVE II tested the two-part treatment in 153 patients across 37 sites in the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Serbia.
Both studies randomized patients 1:1:1 to a high dose (SEL-110 of 0.15 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), low dose (SEL-110 of 0.1 mg/kg plus SEL-037 of 0.2 mg/kg), or placebo (saline) infused every 28 days for 6 months. Prophylaxis against infusion reactions and gout flares were given to all participants.
Adult patients had a 10- to 14-year history of symptomatic gout, with three or more flares over the 18 months prior to screening, or one or more tophus, or a diagnosis of gouty arthritis. They were also required to have chronic refractory gout with a failure to normalize serum uric acid with any xanthine oxidase inhibitor (for example, allopurinol) and to have not been previously exposed to uricase-based therapy. Serum uric acid had to be at least 7 mg/dL. Participants were balanced for age, body mass index, and sex across treatment groups. Gout severity was greater in DISSOLVE II, Dr. Baraf reported.
Both studies treated patients for 6 months, but DISSOLVE 1 continued with a 6-month, blinded safety extension. The primary endpoint in both studies was serum urate control during month 6, and secondary endpoints included tender and swollen joint counts, tophus burden, patient-reported outcomes of activity limitation, quality of life, and gout flare incidence.
In DISSOLVE I, patients on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 56% with the high dose (P < .0001) and 48% with the low dose (P < .0001), compared with 4% of patients randomized to receive placebo. In DISSOLVE II, participants on SEL-212 had a statistically significant higher response rate during month 6 of 46% with the high dose (P = .0002) and 40% with the low dose (P = .0008), compared with 11% of patients randomized to receive placebo.
“We also saw significant reductions in serum uric acid for all treatment groups, compared with placebo,” Dr. Baraf reported. Mean percentage change was –62.3% and –58.3% in the high- and low-dose groups, respectively, in DISSOLVE I, and –58.1% and –52.2% in DISSOLVE II, respectively.
SEL-212 had a favorable safety profile with adverse events as expected across both doses, including mild to moderate stomatitis (3.4% in the low-dose group and 9.2% in the high-dose group versus 0% in the placebo group), and a greater number of infusion reactions at 24 hours and 1 hour after drug administration in both treatment groups versus placebo. Six patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, including two cases of anaphylaxis and one gout flare in both the high- and low-dose treatment groups. The 6-month extension period in the DISSOLVE I trial showed that the majority (75%) of patients who completed 6 months of SEL-212 treatment as a responder continued to be successfully treated through 12 months with no infusion reactions or safety signals.
“I expect more data will be forthcoming on the important clinical secondary endpoints targeted by SEL-212 therapy,” Dr. Baraf noted.
Need control arm taking allopurinol?
Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, commented on the study methods after the presentation. “The major problem with this study is that they say the patients had had insufficient response to allopurinol, and my guess is most had received 100-200 mg of allopurinol but were not titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose,” he said, adding: “they should have had a control arm of patients on allopurinol and titrated to the maximum tolerated dose. So, I don’t know what this is really telling us with respect to allopurinol, which is a relatively cheap drug.”
Dr. Baraf reported consulting with Horizon, Sobi, and Selecta; serving on Horizon’s speakers bureau, and receiving grant/research support from Horizon and Sobi. Dr. Fleischmann reported no financial relationship of relevance to this study.
AT EULAR 2023