Miriam E. Tucker

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System (Insulet), the third semiautomated closed-loop insulin delivery system in the United States and the first that is tubing free.

Omnipod 5 is cleared for people aged 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes. The system integrates the tubeless insulin delivery Pods with Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and a smartphone app or a separate controller device to automatically adjust insulin to minimize high and low blood glucose levels via SmartAdjust technology.

Within the app is a SmartBolus calculator that receives Dexcom CGM values every 5 minutes and automatically adjusts insulin up or down or pauses it based on predicted values for 60 minutes into the future and the individual’s customized glucose targets.

The Omnipod 5 becomes the third FDA-cleared semiautomated insulin delivery system in the United States, along with systems by Tandem and Medtronic. Others are available outside the United States. All of the currently marketed systems incorporate insulin pumps with tubing, whereas the tubeless Pods are worn directly on the body and changed every 3 days.

In a statement, JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, said: “Authorization of the Insulet Omnipod 5 is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes community. As the first tubeless hybrid closed-loop system to receive FDA clearance, this is a critical step forward in making day-to-day life better for people living with the disease.”

JDRF, which worked with the FDA to establish regulatory pathways for artificial pancreas technology, supported the development of the Omnipod 5 control algorithm through investigators in the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Consortium.

The Omnipod 5 will be available as a pharmacy product. It will be launched soon in limited market release and broadly thereafter.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System (Insulet), the third semiautomated closed-loop insulin delivery system in the United States and the first that is tubing free.

Omnipod 5 is cleared for people aged 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes. The system integrates the tubeless insulin delivery Pods with Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and a smartphone app or a separate controller device to automatically adjust insulin to minimize high and low blood glucose levels via SmartAdjust technology.

Within the app is a SmartBolus calculator that receives Dexcom CGM values every 5 minutes and automatically adjusts insulin up or down or pauses it based on predicted values for 60 minutes into the future and the individual’s customized glucose targets.

The Omnipod 5 becomes the third FDA-cleared semiautomated insulin delivery system in the United States, along with systems by Tandem and Medtronic. Others are available outside the United States. All of the currently marketed systems incorporate insulin pumps with tubing, whereas the tubeless Pods are worn directly on the body and changed every 3 days.

In a statement, JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, said: “Authorization of the Insulet Omnipod 5 is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes community. As the first tubeless hybrid closed-loop system to receive FDA clearance, this is a critical step forward in making day-to-day life better for people living with the disease.”

JDRF, which worked with the FDA to establish regulatory pathways for artificial pancreas technology, supported the development of the Omnipod 5 control algorithm through investigators in the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Consortium.

The Omnipod 5 will be available as a pharmacy product. It will be launched soon in limited market release and broadly thereafter.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System (Insulet), the third semiautomated closed-loop insulin delivery system in the United States and the first that is tubing free.

Omnipod 5 is cleared for people aged 6 years and older with type 1 diabetes. The system integrates the tubeless insulin delivery Pods with Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and a smartphone app or a separate controller device to automatically adjust insulin to minimize high and low blood glucose levels via SmartAdjust technology.

Within the app is a SmartBolus calculator that receives Dexcom CGM values every 5 minutes and automatically adjusts insulin up or down or pauses it based on predicted values for 60 minutes into the future and the individual’s customized glucose targets.

The Omnipod 5 becomes the third FDA-cleared semiautomated insulin delivery system in the United States, along with systems by Tandem and Medtronic. Others are available outside the United States. All of the currently marketed systems incorporate insulin pumps with tubing, whereas the tubeless Pods are worn directly on the body and changed every 3 days.

In a statement, JDRF, the type 1 diabetes advocacy organization, said: “Authorization of the Insulet Omnipod 5 is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes community. As the first tubeless hybrid closed-loop system to receive FDA clearance, this is a critical step forward in making day-to-day life better for people living with the disease.”

JDRF, which worked with the FDA to establish regulatory pathways for artificial pancreas technology, supported the development of the Omnipod 5 control algorithm through investigators in the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Consortium.

The Omnipod 5 will be available as a pharmacy product. It will be launched soon in limited market release and broadly thereafter.

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

More than 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes and over a third have prediabetes, according to updated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The National Diabetes Statistics Report includes data for 2017-2020 from several nationally representative sources on prevalence and incidence of diabetes and prediabetes, risk factors for complications, acute and long-term complications, and costs.

According to the new report, published on Jan. 25, a total of 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes, or about 11.3% of the population. Of those, 28.7 million are diagnosed (including 28.5 million adults), while 8.5 million, or 23% of those with diabetes, are undiagnosed.

Another 96 million adults have prediabetes, comprising 38.0% of the adult U.S. population, of whom only 19% are aware of their prediabetes status.

In a statement, the American Diabetes Association said the new CDC data “show an alarming increase of diabetes in our nation among adults,” while the high number with prediabetes who don’t know that they have it “is fueling the diabetes epidemic.”

Regarding the total estimated 1.84 million with type 1 diabetes, the advocacy organization JDRF said in a statement: “These data and additional statistical research reinforces the urgency to accelerate life-changing breakthroughs to cure, prevent, and treat [type 1 diabetes] and its complications.”

Overall, the ADA said, “the National Diabetes Statistics Report reaffirms why the ADA is dedicated to innovative research to find a cure for diabetes once and for all.”
 

Notable increases since 2019

These new data represent notable increases since the CDC’s 2019 Report Card, which gave the U.S. population with diabetes in 2018 as 34.2 million, or 10.5% of the population, including 7.3 million undiagnosed. The prediabetes prevalence that year was 88 million.

Among children and adolescents younger than 20 years, 283,000, or 35 per 10,000 U.S. youths, had diagnosed diabetes in 2019. Of those, 244,000 had type 1 diabetes. Another 1.6 million adults aged 20 and older also reported having type 1 diabetes, comprising 5.7% of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes.

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

More than 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes and over a third have prediabetes, according to updated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The National Diabetes Statistics Report includes data for 2017-2020 from several nationally representative sources on prevalence and incidence of diabetes and prediabetes, risk factors for complications, acute and long-term complications, and costs.

According to the new report, published on Jan. 25, a total of 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes, or about 11.3% of the population. Of those, 28.7 million are diagnosed (including 28.5 million adults), while 8.5 million, or 23% of those with diabetes, are undiagnosed.

Another 96 million adults have prediabetes, comprising 38.0% of the adult U.S. population, of whom only 19% are aware of their prediabetes status.

In a statement, the American Diabetes Association said the new CDC data “show an alarming increase of diabetes in our nation among adults,” while the high number with prediabetes who don’t know that they have it “is fueling the diabetes epidemic.”

Regarding the total estimated 1.84 million with type 1 diabetes, the advocacy organization JDRF said in a statement: “These data and additional statistical research reinforces the urgency to accelerate life-changing breakthroughs to cure, prevent, and treat [type 1 diabetes] and its complications.”

Overall, the ADA said, “the National Diabetes Statistics Report reaffirms why the ADA is dedicated to innovative research to find a cure for diabetes once and for all.”
 

Notable increases since 2019

These new data represent notable increases since the CDC’s 2019 Report Card, which gave the U.S. population with diabetes in 2018 as 34.2 million, or 10.5% of the population, including 7.3 million undiagnosed. The prediabetes prevalence that year was 88 million.

Among children and adolescents younger than 20 years, 283,000, or 35 per 10,000 U.S. youths, had diagnosed diabetes in 2019. Of those, 244,000 had type 1 diabetes. Another 1.6 million adults aged 20 and older also reported having type 1 diabetes, comprising 5.7% of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes.

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

More than 1 in 10 Americans have diabetes and over a third have prediabetes, according to updated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The National Diabetes Statistics Report includes data for 2017-2020 from several nationally representative sources on prevalence and incidence of diabetes and prediabetes, risk factors for complications, acute and long-term complications, and costs.

According to the new report, published on Jan. 25, a total of 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes, or about 11.3% of the population. Of those, 28.7 million are diagnosed (including 28.5 million adults), while 8.5 million, or 23% of those with diabetes, are undiagnosed.

Another 96 million adults have prediabetes, comprising 38.0% of the adult U.S. population, of whom only 19% are aware of their prediabetes status.

In a statement, the American Diabetes Association said the new CDC data “show an alarming increase of diabetes in our nation among adults,” while the high number with prediabetes who don’t know that they have it “is fueling the diabetes epidemic.”

Regarding the total estimated 1.84 million with type 1 diabetes, the advocacy organization JDRF said in a statement: “These data and additional statistical research reinforces the urgency to accelerate life-changing breakthroughs to cure, prevent, and treat [type 1 diabetes] and its complications.”

Overall, the ADA said, “the National Diabetes Statistics Report reaffirms why the ADA is dedicated to innovative research to find a cure for diabetes once and for all.”
 

Notable increases since 2019

These new data represent notable increases since the CDC’s 2019 Report Card, which gave the U.S. population with diabetes in 2018 as 34.2 million, or 10.5% of the population, including 7.3 million undiagnosed. The prediabetes prevalence that year was 88 million.

Among children and adolescents younger than 20 years, 283,000, or 35 per 10,000 U.S. youths, had diagnosed diabetes in 2019. Of those, 244,000 had type 1 diabetes. Another 1.6 million adults aged 20 and older also reported having type 1 diabetes, comprising 5.7% of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes.

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

Two new studies from different parts of the world have identified an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but the reasons still aren’t clear.

The findings from the two studies, in Germany and the United States, align closely, endocrinologist Jane J. Kim, MD, professor of pediatrics and principal investigator of the U.S. study, told this news organization. “I think that the general conclusion based on their data and our data is that there appears to be an increased rate of new type 1 diabetes diagnoses in children since the onset of the pandemic.”

Dr. Kim noted that because her group’s data pertain to just a single center, she is “heartened to see that the [German team’s] general conclusions are the same as ours.” Moreover, she pointed out that other studies examining this question came from Europe early in the pandemic, whereas “now both they [the German group] and we have had the opportunity to look at what’s happening over a longer period of time.”

But the reason for the association remains unclear. Some answers may be forthcoming from a database designed in mid-2020 specifically to examine the relationship between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes. Called CoviDiab, the registry aims “to establish the extent and characteristics of new-onset, COVID-19–related diabetes and to investigate its pathogenesis, management, and outcomes,” according to the website.

The first new study, a multicenter German diabetes registry study, was published online Jan. 17 in Diabetes Care by Clemens Kamrath, MD, of Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany, and colleagues.

The other, from Rady Children’s Hospital of San Diego, was published online Jan. 24 in JAMA Pediatrics by Bethany L. Gottesman, MD, and colleagues, all with the University of California, San Diego.
 

Mechanisms likely to differ for type 1 versus type 2 diabetes

Neither the German nor the U.S. investigators were able to directly correlate current or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with the subsequent development of type 1 diabetes.

Earlier this month, a study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did examine that issue, but it also included youth with type 2 diabetes and did not separate out the two groups.

Dr. Kim said her institution has also seen an increase in type 2 diabetes among youth since the COVID-19 pandemic began but did not include that in their current article.

“When we started looking at our data, diabetes and COVID-19 in adults had been relatively well established. To see an increase in type 2 [diabetes] was not so surprising to our group. But we had the sense we were seeing more patients with type 1, and when we looked at our hospital that was very much the case. I think that was a surprise to people,” said Dr. Kim.

Although a direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells has been proposed, in both the German and San Diego datasets the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was confirmed with autoantibodies that are typically present years prior to the onset of clinical symptoms.

The German group suggests possible other explanations for the link, including the lack of immune system exposure to other common pediatric infections during pandemic-necessitated social distancing – the so-called hygiene hypothesis – as well as the possible role of psychological stress, which several studies have linked to type 1 diabetes.

But as of now, Dr. Kim said, “Nobody really knows.” 
 

Is the effect direct or indirect?

Using data from the multicenter German Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Registry, Dr. Kamrath and colleagues compared the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents from Jan. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 with the incidence in 2011-2019.

During the pandemic period, a total of 5,162 youth were newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at 236 German centers. That incidence, 24.4 per 100,000 patient-years, was significantly higher than the 21.2 per 100,000 patient-years expected based on the prior decade, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.15 (P < .001). The increase was similar in both males and females.

There was a difference by age, however, as the phenomenon appeared to be limited to the preadolescent age groups. The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for ages below 6 years and 6-11 years were 1.23 and 1.18 (both P < .001), respectively, compared to a nonsignificant IRR of 1.06 (P = .13) in those aged 12-17 years.

Compared with the expected monthly incidence, the observed incidence was significantly higher in June 2020 (IRR, 1.43; P = .003), July 2020 (IRR, 1.48; P < 0.001), March 2021 (IRR, 1.29; P = .028), and June 2021 (IRR, 1.39; P = .01).

Among the 3,851 patients for whom data on type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies were available, the adjusted rates of autoantibody negativity did not differ from 2018-2019 during the entire pandemic period or during the year 2020 or the first half of 2021.  

“Therefore, the increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children appears to be due to immune-mediated type 1 diabetes. However, because autoimmunity and progressive beta-cell destruction typically begin long before the clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, we were surprised to see the incidence of type 1 diabetes followed the peak incidence of COVID-19 and also the pandemic containment measures by only approximately 3 months,” Dr. Kamrath and colleagues write.

Taken together, they say, the data suggest that “the impact on type 1 diabetes incidence is not due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 but rather a consequence of environmental changes resulting from the pandemic itself or pandemic containment measures.”
 

Similar findings at a U.S. children’s hospital

In the cross-sectional study in San Diego, Dr. Gottesman and colleagues looked at the electronic medical records (EMRs) at Rady Children’s Hospital for patients aged younger than 19 years with at least one positive type 1 diabetes antibody titer.

During March 19, 2020 to March 18, 2021, a total of 187 children were admitted for new-onset type 1 diabetes, compared with just 119 the previous year, a 57% increase.

From July 2020 through February 2021, the number of new type 1 diabetes diagnoses significantly exceeded the number expected based on a quarterly moving average of each of the preceding 5 years.

Only four of the 187 patients (2.1%) diagnosed during the pandemic period had a COVID-19 infection at the time of presentation. Antibody testing to assess prior infection wasn’t feasible, and now that children are receiving the vaccine – and therefore most will have antibodies – “we’ve lost our window of opportunity to look at that question,” Dr. Kim noted.   

As has been previously shown, there was an increase in the percentage of patients presenting with diabetic ketoacidosis during the pandemic compared with the prior 5 years (49.7% vs. 40.7% requiring insulin infusion). However, there was no difference in mean age at presentation, body mass index, A1c, or percentage requiring admission to intensive care.

Because these data only go through March 2021, Dr. Kim noted, “We need to see what’s happening with these different variants. We’ll have a chance to look in a month or two to see the effects of Omicron on the rates of diabetes in the hospital.”
 

Will CoviDiab answer the question?

Data from CoviDiab will include diabetes type in adults and children, registry coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“We aimed at having as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c. By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19 as this also speaks about mechanisms of action.”

Dr. Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or that the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

“We’re looking at this question with a skeptical eye ... Is it just an association, or does the virus have a role in inducing diabetes from scratch, or can the virus advance pathophysiology in a way that it ends up in full-blown diabetes in predisposed individuals?”

While no single study will prove that SARS-CoV-2 causes diabetes, “combining observations from various studies and approaches we may get a higher degree of certainty,” Dr. Rubino said, noting that the CoviDiab team plans to publish data from the first 800 cases “soon.”

Dr. Kim has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino has reported receiving grants from Ethicon and Medtronic, personal fees from GI Dynamic, Keyron, Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic.

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

Two new studies from different parts of the world have identified an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but the reasons still aren’t clear.

The findings from the two studies, in Germany and the United States, align closely, endocrinologist Jane J. Kim, MD, professor of pediatrics and principal investigator of the U.S. study, told this news organization. “I think that the general conclusion based on their data and our data is that there appears to be an increased rate of new type 1 diabetes diagnoses in children since the onset of the pandemic.”

Dr. Kim noted that because her group’s data pertain to just a single center, she is “heartened to see that the [German team’s] general conclusions are the same as ours.” Moreover, she pointed out that other studies examining this question came from Europe early in the pandemic, whereas “now both they [the German group] and we have had the opportunity to look at what’s happening over a longer period of time.”

But the reason for the association remains unclear. Some answers may be forthcoming from a database designed in mid-2020 specifically to examine the relationship between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes. Called CoviDiab, the registry aims “to establish the extent and characteristics of new-onset, COVID-19–related diabetes and to investigate its pathogenesis, management, and outcomes,” according to the website.

The first new study, a multicenter German diabetes registry study, was published online Jan. 17 in Diabetes Care by Clemens Kamrath, MD, of Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany, and colleagues.

The other, from Rady Children’s Hospital of San Diego, was published online Jan. 24 in JAMA Pediatrics by Bethany L. Gottesman, MD, and colleagues, all with the University of California, San Diego.
 

Mechanisms likely to differ for type 1 versus type 2 diabetes

Neither the German nor the U.S. investigators were able to directly correlate current or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with the subsequent development of type 1 diabetes.

Earlier this month, a study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did examine that issue, but it also included youth with type 2 diabetes and did not separate out the two groups.

Dr. Kim said her institution has also seen an increase in type 2 diabetes among youth since the COVID-19 pandemic began but did not include that in their current article.

“When we started looking at our data, diabetes and COVID-19 in adults had been relatively well established. To see an increase in type 2 [diabetes] was not so surprising to our group. But we had the sense we were seeing more patients with type 1, and when we looked at our hospital that was very much the case. I think that was a surprise to people,” said Dr. Kim.

Although a direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells has been proposed, in both the German and San Diego datasets the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was confirmed with autoantibodies that are typically present years prior to the onset of clinical symptoms.

The German group suggests possible other explanations for the link, including the lack of immune system exposure to other common pediatric infections during pandemic-necessitated social distancing – the so-called hygiene hypothesis – as well as the possible role of psychological stress, which several studies have linked to type 1 diabetes.

But as of now, Dr. Kim said, “Nobody really knows.” 
 

Is the effect direct or indirect?

Using data from the multicenter German Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Registry, Dr. Kamrath and colleagues compared the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents from Jan. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 with the incidence in 2011-2019.

During the pandemic period, a total of 5,162 youth were newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at 236 German centers. That incidence, 24.4 per 100,000 patient-years, was significantly higher than the 21.2 per 100,000 patient-years expected based on the prior decade, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.15 (P < .001). The increase was similar in both males and females.

There was a difference by age, however, as the phenomenon appeared to be limited to the preadolescent age groups. The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for ages below 6 years and 6-11 years were 1.23 and 1.18 (both P < .001), respectively, compared to a nonsignificant IRR of 1.06 (P = .13) in those aged 12-17 years.

Compared with the expected monthly incidence, the observed incidence was significantly higher in June 2020 (IRR, 1.43; P = .003), July 2020 (IRR, 1.48; P < 0.001), March 2021 (IRR, 1.29; P = .028), and June 2021 (IRR, 1.39; P = .01).

Among the 3,851 patients for whom data on type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies were available, the adjusted rates of autoantibody negativity did not differ from 2018-2019 during the entire pandemic period or during the year 2020 or the first half of 2021.  

“Therefore, the increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children appears to be due to immune-mediated type 1 diabetes. However, because autoimmunity and progressive beta-cell destruction typically begin long before the clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, we were surprised to see the incidence of type 1 diabetes followed the peak incidence of COVID-19 and also the pandemic containment measures by only approximately 3 months,” Dr. Kamrath and colleagues write.

Taken together, they say, the data suggest that “the impact on type 1 diabetes incidence is not due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 but rather a consequence of environmental changes resulting from the pandemic itself or pandemic containment measures.”
 

Similar findings at a U.S. children’s hospital

In the cross-sectional study in San Diego, Dr. Gottesman and colleagues looked at the electronic medical records (EMRs) at Rady Children’s Hospital for patients aged younger than 19 years with at least one positive type 1 diabetes antibody titer.

During March 19, 2020 to March 18, 2021, a total of 187 children were admitted for new-onset type 1 diabetes, compared with just 119 the previous year, a 57% increase.

From July 2020 through February 2021, the number of new type 1 diabetes diagnoses significantly exceeded the number expected based on a quarterly moving average of each of the preceding 5 years.

Only four of the 187 patients (2.1%) diagnosed during the pandemic period had a COVID-19 infection at the time of presentation. Antibody testing to assess prior infection wasn’t feasible, and now that children are receiving the vaccine – and therefore most will have antibodies – “we’ve lost our window of opportunity to look at that question,” Dr. Kim noted.   

As has been previously shown, there was an increase in the percentage of patients presenting with diabetic ketoacidosis during the pandemic compared with the prior 5 years (49.7% vs. 40.7% requiring insulin infusion). However, there was no difference in mean age at presentation, body mass index, A1c, or percentage requiring admission to intensive care.

Because these data only go through March 2021, Dr. Kim noted, “We need to see what’s happening with these different variants. We’ll have a chance to look in a month or two to see the effects of Omicron on the rates of diabetes in the hospital.”
 

Will CoviDiab answer the question?

Data from CoviDiab will include diabetes type in adults and children, registry coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“We aimed at having as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c. By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19 as this also speaks about mechanisms of action.”

Dr. Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or that the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

“We’re looking at this question with a skeptical eye ... Is it just an association, or does the virus have a role in inducing diabetes from scratch, or can the virus advance pathophysiology in a way that it ends up in full-blown diabetes in predisposed individuals?”

While no single study will prove that SARS-CoV-2 causes diabetes, “combining observations from various studies and approaches we may get a higher degree of certainty,” Dr. Rubino said, noting that the CoviDiab team plans to publish data from the first 800 cases “soon.”

Dr. Kim has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino has reported receiving grants from Ethicon and Medtronic, personal fees from GI Dynamic, Keyron, Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic.

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

Two new studies from different parts of the world have identified an increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children since the COVID-19 pandemic began, but the reasons still aren’t clear.

The findings from the two studies, in Germany and the United States, align closely, endocrinologist Jane J. Kim, MD, professor of pediatrics and principal investigator of the U.S. study, told this news organization. “I think that the general conclusion based on their data and our data is that there appears to be an increased rate of new type 1 diabetes diagnoses in children since the onset of the pandemic.”

Dr. Kim noted that because her group’s data pertain to just a single center, she is “heartened to see that the [German team’s] general conclusions are the same as ours.” Moreover, she pointed out that other studies examining this question came from Europe early in the pandemic, whereas “now both they [the German group] and we have had the opportunity to look at what’s happening over a longer period of time.”

But the reason for the association remains unclear. Some answers may be forthcoming from a database designed in mid-2020 specifically to examine the relationship between COVID-19 and new-onset diabetes. Called CoviDiab, the registry aims “to establish the extent and characteristics of new-onset, COVID-19–related diabetes and to investigate its pathogenesis, management, and outcomes,” according to the website.

The first new study, a multicenter German diabetes registry study, was published online Jan. 17 in Diabetes Care by Clemens Kamrath, MD, of Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany, and colleagues.

The other, from Rady Children’s Hospital of San Diego, was published online Jan. 24 in JAMA Pediatrics by Bethany L. Gottesman, MD, and colleagues, all with the University of California, San Diego.
 

Mechanisms likely to differ for type 1 versus type 2 diabetes

Neither the German nor the U.S. investigators were able to directly correlate current or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with the subsequent development of type 1 diabetes.

Earlier this month, a study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did examine that issue, but it also included youth with type 2 diabetes and did not separate out the two groups.

Dr. Kim said her institution has also seen an increase in type 2 diabetes among youth since the COVID-19 pandemic began but did not include that in their current article.

“When we started looking at our data, diabetes and COVID-19 in adults had been relatively well established. To see an increase in type 2 [diabetes] was not so surprising to our group. But we had the sense we were seeing more patients with type 1, and when we looked at our hospital that was very much the case. I think that was a surprise to people,” said Dr. Kim.

Although a direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 on pancreatic beta cells has been proposed, in both the German and San Diego datasets the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was confirmed with autoantibodies that are typically present years prior to the onset of clinical symptoms.

The German group suggests possible other explanations for the link, including the lack of immune system exposure to other common pediatric infections during pandemic-necessitated social distancing – the so-called hygiene hypothesis – as well as the possible role of psychological stress, which several studies have linked to type 1 diabetes.

But as of now, Dr. Kim said, “Nobody really knows.” 
 

Is the effect direct or indirect?

Using data from the multicenter German Diabetes Prospective Follow-up Registry, Dr. Kamrath and colleagues compared the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children and adolescents from Jan. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 with the incidence in 2011-2019.

During the pandemic period, a total of 5,162 youth were newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at 236 German centers. That incidence, 24.4 per 100,000 patient-years, was significantly higher than the 21.2 per 100,000 patient-years expected based on the prior decade, with an incidence rate ratio of 1.15 (P < .001). The increase was similar in both males and females.

There was a difference by age, however, as the phenomenon appeared to be limited to the preadolescent age groups. The incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for ages below 6 years and 6-11 years were 1.23 and 1.18 (both P < .001), respectively, compared to a nonsignificant IRR of 1.06 (P = .13) in those aged 12-17 years.

Compared with the expected monthly incidence, the observed incidence was significantly higher in June 2020 (IRR, 1.43; P = .003), July 2020 (IRR, 1.48; P < 0.001), March 2021 (IRR, 1.29; P = .028), and June 2021 (IRR, 1.39; P = .01).

Among the 3,851 patients for whom data on type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies were available, the adjusted rates of autoantibody negativity did not differ from 2018-2019 during the entire pandemic period or during the year 2020 or the first half of 2021.  

“Therefore, the increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes in children appears to be due to immune-mediated type 1 diabetes. However, because autoimmunity and progressive beta-cell destruction typically begin long before the clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, we were surprised to see the incidence of type 1 diabetes followed the peak incidence of COVID-19 and also the pandemic containment measures by only approximately 3 months,” Dr. Kamrath and colleagues write.

Taken together, they say, the data suggest that “the impact on type 1 diabetes incidence is not due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 but rather a consequence of environmental changes resulting from the pandemic itself or pandemic containment measures.”
 

Similar findings at a U.S. children’s hospital

In the cross-sectional study in San Diego, Dr. Gottesman and colleagues looked at the electronic medical records (EMRs) at Rady Children’s Hospital for patients aged younger than 19 years with at least one positive type 1 diabetes antibody titer.

During March 19, 2020 to March 18, 2021, a total of 187 children were admitted for new-onset type 1 diabetes, compared with just 119 the previous year, a 57% increase.

From July 2020 through February 2021, the number of new type 1 diabetes diagnoses significantly exceeded the number expected based on a quarterly moving average of each of the preceding 5 years.

Only four of the 187 patients (2.1%) diagnosed during the pandemic period had a COVID-19 infection at the time of presentation. Antibody testing to assess prior infection wasn’t feasible, and now that children are receiving the vaccine – and therefore most will have antibodies – “we’ve lost our window of opportunity to look at that question,” Dr. Kim noted.   

As has been previously shown, there was an increase in the percentage of patients presenting with diabetic ketoacidosis during the pandemic compared with the prior 5 years (49.7% vs. 40.7% requiring insulin infusion). However, there was no difference in mean age at presentation, body mass index, A1c, or percentage requiring admission to intensive care.

Because these data only go through March 2021, Dr. Kim noted, “We need to see what’s happening with these different variants. We’ll have a chance to look in a month or two to see the effects of Omicron on the rates of diabetes in the hospital.”
 

Will CoviDiab answer the question?

Data from CoviDiab will include diabetes type in adults and children, registry coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, told this news organization.

“We aimed at having as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c. By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19 as this also speaks about mechanisms of action.”

Dr. Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or that the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

“We’re looking at this question with a skeptical eye ... Is it just an association, or does the virus have a role in inducing diabetes from scratch, or can the virus advance pathophysiology in a way that it ends up in full-blown diabetes in predisposed individuals?”

While no single study will prove that SARS-CoV-2 causes diabetes, “combining observations from various studies and approaches we may get a higher degree of certainty,” Dr. Rubino said, noting that the CoviDiab team plans to publish data from the first 800 cases “soon.”

Dr. Kim has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rubino has reported receiving grants from Ethicon and Medtronic, personal fees from GI Dynamic, Keyron, Novo Nordisk, Ethicon, and Medtronic.

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

A semiautomated insulin delivery system improved glycemic control in young children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years without increasing hypoglycemia.

“Hybrid closed-loop” systems – comprising an insulin pump, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and software enabling communication that semiautomates insulin delivery based on glucose levels – have been shown to improve glucose control in older children and adults.

Gilnature/iStock/Getty Images

The technology, also known as an artificial pancreas, has been less studied in very young children even though it may uniquely benefit them, said the authors of the new study, led by Julia Ware, MD, of the Wellcome Trust–Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science and the University of Cambridge (England). The findings were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Very young children are extremely vulnerable to changes in their blood sugar levels. High levels in particular can have potentially lasting consequences to their brain development. On top of that, diabetes is very challenging to manage in this age group, creating a huge burden for families,” she said in a University of Cambridge statement.

There is “high variability of insulin requirements, marked insulin sensitivity, and unpredictable eating and activity patterns,” Dr. Ware and colleagues noted.

“Caregiver fear of hypoglycemia, particularly overnight, is common and, coupled with young children’s unawareness that hypoglycemia is occurring, contributes to children not meeting the recommended glycemic targets or having difficulty maintaining recommended glycemic control unless caregivers can provide constant monitoring. These issues often lead to ... reduced quality of life for the whole family,” they added.
 

Except for mealtimes, device is fully automated

The new multicenter, randomized, crossover trial was conducted at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom in 2019-2020.

The trial compared the safety and efficacy of hybrid closed-loop therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy (that is, without the device communication, as a control). All 74 children used the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system for 16 weeks, and then used the control treatment for 16 weeks. The children were a mean age of 5.6 years and had a baseline hemoglobin A1c of 7.3% (56.6 mmol/mol).

The hybrid closed-loop system consisted of components that are commercially available in Europe: the Sooil insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS) and the Dexcom G6 CGM, along with an unlocked Samsung Galaxy 8 smartphone housing an app (CamAPS FX, CamDiab) that runs the Cambridge proprietary model predictive control algorithm.

The smartphone communicates wirelessly with both the pump and the CGM transmitter and automatically adjusts the pump’s insulin delivery based on real-time sensor glucose readings. It also issues alarms if glucose levels fall below or rise above user-specified thresholds. This functionality was disabled during the study control periods.

Senior investigator Roman Hovorka, PhD, who developed the CamAPS FX app, explained in the University of Cambridge statement that the app “makes predictions about what it thinks is likely to happen next based on past experience. It learns how much insulin the child needs per day and how this changes at different times of the day.

“It then uses this [information] to adjust insulin levels to help achieve ideal blood sugar levels. Other than at mealtimes, it is fully automated, so parents do not need to continually monitor their child’s blood sugar levels.”

Indeed, the time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) during the 16-week closed-loop period was 8.7 percentage points higher than during the control period (P < .001).

That difference translates to “a clinically meaningful 125 minutes per day,” and represented around three-quarters of their day (71.6%) in the target range, the investigators wrote.  

The mean adjusted difference in time spent above 180 mg/dL was 8.5 percentage points lower with the closed-loop, also a significant difference (P < .001). Time spent below 70 mg/dL did not differ significantly between the two interventions (P = .74).

At the end of the study periods, the mean adjusted between-treatment difference in A1c was –0.4 percentage points, significantly lower following the closed-loop, compared with the control period (P < .001).

That percentage point difference (equivalent to 3.9 mmol/mol) “is important in a population of patients who had tight glycemic control at baseline. This result was observed without an increase in the time spent in a hypoglycemic state,” Dr. Ware and colleagues noted.

Median glucose sensor use was 99% during the closed-loop period and 96% during the control periods. During the closed-loop periods, the system was in closed-loop mode 95% of the time.

This finding supports longer-term usability in this age group and compares well with use in older children, they said.

One serious hypoglycemic episode, attributed to parental error rather than system malfunction, occurred during the closed-loop period. There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis. Rates of other adverse events didn’t differ between the two periods.

“CamAPS FX led to improvements in several measures, including hyperglycemia and average blood sugar levels, without increasing the risk of hypos. This is likely to have important benefits for those children who use it,” Dr. Ware summarized.
 

Sleep quality could improve for children and caregivers

Reductions in time spent in hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia could minimize the risk for neurocognitive deficits that have been reported among young children with type 1 diabetes, the authors speculated.

In addition, they noted that because 80% of overnight sensor readings were within target range and less than 3% were below 70 mg/dL, sleep quality could improve for both the children and their parents. This, in turn, “would confer associated quality of life benefits.”

“Parents have described our artificial pancreas as ‘life changing’ as it meant they were able to relax and spend less time worrying about their child’s blood sugar levels, particularly at nighttime. They tell us it gives them more time to do what any ‘normal’ family can do, to play and do fun things with their children,” observed Dr. Ware.

The CamAPS FX has been commercialized by CamDiab, a spin-out company set up by Dr. Hovorka. It is currently available through several NHS trusts across the United Kingdom, including Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and is expected to be more widely available soon.

The study was supported by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Framework Program, the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and JDRF. Dr. Ware had no further disclosures. Dr. Hovorka has reported acting as consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, BD, Dexcom, being a speaker for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, and receiving royalty payments from B. Braun for software. He is director of CamDiab.

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

A semiautomated insulin delivery system improved glycemic control in young children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years without increasing hypoglycemia.

“Hybrid closed-loop” systems – comprising an insulin pump, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and software enabling communication that semiautomates insulin delivery based on glucose levels – have been shown to improve glucose control in older children and adults.

Gilnature/iStock/Getty Images

The technology, also known as an artificial pancreas, has been less studied in very young children even though it may uniquely benefit them, said the authors of the new study, led by Julia Ware, MD, of the Wellcome Trust–Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science and the University of Cambridge (England). The findings were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Very young children are extremely vulnerable to changes in their blood sugar levels. High levels in particular can have potentially lasting consequences to their brain development. On top of that, diabetes is very challenging to manage in this age group, creating a huge burden for families,” she said in a University of Cambridge statement.

There is “high variability of insulin requirements, marked insulin sensitivity, and unpredictable eating and activity patterns,” Dr. Ware and colleagues noted.

“Caregiver fear of hypoglycemia, particularly overnight, is common and, coupled with young children’s unawareness that hypoglycemia is occurring, contributes to children not meeting the recommended glycemic targets or having difficulty maintaining recommended glycemic control unless caregivers can provide constant monitoring. These issues often lead to ... reduced quality of life for the whole family,” they added.
 

Except for mealtimes, device is fully automated

The new multicenter, randomized, crossover trial was conducted at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom in 2019-2020.

The trial compared the safety and efficacy of hybrid closed-loop therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy (that is, without the device communication, as a control). All 74 children used the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system for 16 weeks, and then used the control treatment for 16 weeks. The children were a mean age of 5.6 years and had a baseline hemoglobin A1c of 7.3% (56.6 mmol/mol).

The hybrid closed-loop system consisted of components that are commercially available in Europe: the Sooil insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS) and the Dexcom G6 CGM, along with an unlocked Samsung Galaxy 8 smartphone housing an app (CamAPS FX, CamDiab) that runs the Cambridge proprietary model predictive control algorithm.

The smartphone communicates wirelessly with both the pump and the CGM transmitter and automatically adjusts the pump’s insulin delivery based on real-time sensor glucose readings. It also issues alarms if glucose levels fall below or rise above user-specified thresholds. This functionality was disabled during the study control periods.

Senior investigator Roman Hovorka, PhD, who developed the CamAPS FX app, explained in the University of Cambridge statement that the app “makes predictions about what it thinks is likely to happen next based on past experience. It learns how much insulin the child needs per day and how this changes at different times of the day.

“It then uses this [information] to adjust insulin levels to help achieve ideal blood sugar levels. Other than at mealtimes, it is fully automated, so parents do not need to continually monitor their child’s blood sugar levels.”

Indeed, the time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) during the 16-week closed-loop period was 8.7 percentage points higher than during the control period (P < .001).

That difference translates to “a clinically meaningful 125 minutes per day,” and represented around three-quarters of their day (71.6%) in the target range, the investigators wrote.  

The mean adjusted difference in time spent above 180 mg/dL was 8.5 percentage points lower with the closed-loop, also a significant difference (P < .001). Time spent below 70 mg/dL did not differ significantly between the two interventions (P = .74).

At the end of the study periods, the mean adjusted between-treatment difference in A1c was –0.4 percentage points, significantly lower following the closed-loop, compared with the control period (P < .001).

That percentage point difference (equivalent to 3.9 mmol/mol) “is important in a population of patients who had tight glycemic control at baseline. This result was observed without an increase in the time spent in a hypoglycemic state,” Dr. Ware and colleagues noted.

Median glucose sensor use was 99% during the closed-loop period and 96% during the control periods. During the closed-loop periods, the system was in closed-loop mode 95% of the time.

This finding supports longer-term usability in this age group and compares well with use in older children, they said.

One serious hypoglycemic episode, attributed to parental error rather than system malfunction, occurred during the closed-loop period. There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis. Rates of other adverse events didn’t differ between the two periods.

“CamAPS FX led to improvements in several measures, including hyperglycemia and average blood sugar levels, without increasing the risk of hypos. This is likely to have important benefits for those children who use it,” Dr. Ware summarized.
 

Sleep quality could improve for children and caregivers

Reductions in time spent in hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia could minimize the risk for neurocognitive deficits that have been reported among young children with type 1 diabetes, the authors speculated.

In addition, they noted that because 80% of overnight sensor readings were within target range and less than 3% were below 70 mg/dL, sleep quality could improve for both the children and their parents. This, in turn, “would confer associated quality of life benefits.”

“Parents have described our artificial pancreas as ‘life changing’ as it meant they were able to relax and spend less time worrying about their child’s blood sugar levels, particularly at nighttime. They tell us it gives them more time to do what any ‘normal’ family can do, to play and do fun things with their children,” observed Dr. Ware.

The CamAPS FX has been commercialized by CamDiab, a spin-out company set up by Dr. Hovorka. It is currently available through several NHS trusts across the United Kingdom, including Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and is expected to be more widely available soon.

The study was supported by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Framework Program, the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and JDRF. Dr. Ware had no further disclosures. Dr. Hovorka has reported acting as consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, BD, Dexcom, being a speaker for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, and receiving royalty payments from B. Braun for software. He is director of CamDiab.

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

A semiautomated insulin delivery system improved glycemic control in young children with type 1 diabetes aged 1-7 years without increasing hypoglycemia.

“Hybrid closed-loop” systems – comprising an insulin pump, a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and software enabling communication that semiautomates insulin delivery based on glucose levels – have been shown to improve glucose control in older children and adults.

Gilnature/iStock/Getty Images

The technology, also known as an artificial pancreas, has been less studied in very young children even though it may uniquely benefit them, said the authors of the new study, led by Julia Ware, MD, of the Wellcome Trust–Medical Research Council Institute of Metabolic Science and the University of Cambridge (England). The findings were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Very young children are extremely vulnerable to changes in their blood sugar levels. High levels in particular can have potentially lasting consequences to their brain development. On top of that, diabetes is very challenging to manage in this age group, creating a huge burden for families,” she said in a University of Cambridge statement.

There is “high variability of insulin requirements, marked insulin sensitivity, and unpredictable eating and activity patterns,” Dr. Ware and colleagues noted.

“Caregiver fear of hypoglycemia, particularly overnight, is common and, coupled with young children’s unawareness that hypoglycemia is occurring, contributes to children not meeting the recommended glycemic targets or having difficulty maintaining recommended glycemic control unless caregivers can provide constant monitoring. These issues often lead to ... reduced quality of life for the whole family,” they added.
 

Except for mealtimes, device is fully automated

The new multicenter, randomized, crossover trial was conducted at seven centers across Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom in 2019-2020.

The trial compared the safety and efficacy of hybrid closed-loop therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy (that is, without the device communication, as a control). All 74 children used the CamAPS FX hybrid closed-loop system for 16 weeks, and then used the control treatment for 16 weeks. The children were a mean age of 5.6 years and had a baseline hemoglobin A1c of 7.3% (56.6 mmol/mol).

The hybrid closed-loop system consisted of components that are commercially available in Europe: the Sooil insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS) and the Dexcom G6 CGM, along with an unlocked Samsung Galaxy 8 smartphone housing an app (CamAPS FX, CamDiab) that runs the Cambridge proprietary model predictive control algorithm.

The smartphone communicates wirelessly with both the pump and the CGM transmitter and automatically adjusts the pump’s insulin delivery based on real-time sensor glucose readings. It also issues alarms if glucose levels fall below or rise above user-specified thresholds. This functionality was disabled during the study control periods.

Senior investigator Roman Hovorka, PhD, who developed the CamAPS FX app, explained in the University of Cambridge statement that the app “makes predictions about what it thinks is likely to happen next based on past experience. It learns how much insulin the child needs per day and how this changes at different times of the day.

“It then uses this [information] to adjust insulin levels to help achieve ideal blood sugar levels. Other than at mealtimes, it is fully automated, so parents do not need to continually monitor their child’s blood sugar levels.”

Indeed, the time spent in target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) during the 16-week closed-loop period was 8.7 percentage points higher than during the control period (P < .001).

That difference translates to “a clinically meaningful 125 minutes per day,” and represented around three-quarters of their day (71.6%) in the target range, the investigators wrote.  

The mean adjusted difference in time spent above 180 mg/dL was 8.5 percentage points lower with the closed-loop, also a significant difference (P < .001). Time spent below 70 mg/dL did not differ significantly between the two interventions (P = .74).

At the end of the study periods, the mean adjusted between-treatment difference in A1c was –0.4 percentage points, significantly lower following the closed-loop, compared with the control period (P < .001).

That percentage point difference (equivalent to 3.9 mmol/mol) “is important in a population of patients who had tight glycemic control at baseline. This result was observed without an increase in the time spent in a hypoglycemic state,” Dr. Ware and colleagues noted.

Median glucose sensor use was 99% during the closed-loop period and 96% during the control periods. During the closed-loop periods, the system was in closed-loop mode 95% of the time.

This finding supports longer-term usability in this age group and compares well with use in older children, they said.

One serious hypoglycemic episode, attributed to parental error rather than system malfunction, occurred during the closed-loop period. There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis. Rates of other adverse events didn’t differ between the two periods.

“CamAPS FX led to improvements in several measures, including hyperglycemia and average blood sugar levels, without increasing the risk of hypos. This is likely to have important benefits for those children who use it,” Dr. Ware summarized.
 

Sleep quality could improve for children and caregivers

Reductions in time spent in hyperglycemia without increasing hypoglycemia could minimize the risk for neurocognitive deficits that have been reported among young children with type 1 diabetes, the authors speculated.

In addition, they noted that because 80% of overnight sensor readings were within target range and less than 3% were below 70 mg/dL, sleep quality could improve for both the children and their parents. This, in turn, “would confer associated quality of life benefits.”

“Parents have described our artificial pancreas as ‘life changing’ as it meant they were able to relax and spend less time worrying about their child’s blood sugar levels, particularly at nighttime. They tell us it gives them more time to do what any ‘normal’ family can do, to play and do fun things with their children,” observed Dr. Ware.

The CamAPS FX has been commercialized by CamDiab, a spin-out company set up by Dr. Hovorka. It is currently available through several NHS trusts across the United Kingdom, including Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and is expected to be more widely available soon.

The study was supported by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Framework Program, the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and JDRF. Dr. Ware had no further disclosures. Dr. Hovorka has reported acting as consultant for Abbott Diabetes Care, BD, Dexcom, being a speaker for Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, and receiving royalty payments from B. Braun for software. He is director of CamDiab.

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

A study showing that once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) produces greater long-term weight loss than once-daily injected liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes has now been published.

The data, previously reported at Obesity Week 2021, were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA.

The findings are from the phase 3 Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 8 trial by Domenica M. Rubino, MD, of the Washington Center for Weight Management and Research, Arlington, Virginia, and colleagues.

Semaglutide and liraglutide, subcutaneously injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, were both first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States and elsewhere, but are now also approved, in different doses, for chronic weight management and in people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities. A phase 2 trial demonstrated that once-daily semaglutide 0.4 mg produced significantly more weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg.

“Semaglutide and liraglutide induce weight loss by lowering energy intake. However, the reduction in caloric intake versus placebo appears to be larger with semaglutide (35%) than liraglutide (approximately 16%),” say Dr. Rubino and colleagues.

“Semaglutide has also been associated with reductions in food cravings, which is less evident with liraglutide, suggesting different mechanisms of energy intake regulation,” they add.   

Novo Nordisk has recently reported that there may be supply problems with Wegovy, as a contract manufacturer that fills syringes for pens to inject the drug temporarily halted deliveries and manufacturing after issues related to good manufacturing practice.

The company is also developing an oral form of semaglutide for weight loss. The oral form has already been approved in doses of 7 or 14 mg/day for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States as Rybelsus.

Individualize treatment for those with obesity

STEP 8 was a randomized, open-label, 68-week phase 3b trial of 338 adults randomized to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 126), once-daily liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 127), or matched injected placebo (n = 85) for 68 weeks, all provided with counseling on diet and physical activity.  

The primary outcome – estimated mean change in body weight at week 68 – was –15.8% with semaglutide versus –6.4% with liraglutide, a significant difference (P < .001). The proportions of patients achieving loss of body weight of 10%, 15%, or 20% were 70.9%, 55.6%, and 38.5% with semaglutide versus 25.6%, 12.0%, and 6.0% with liraglutide, respectively.

Significantly greater reductions were also seen at 68 weeks for weekly semaglutide versus daily liraglutide in absolute body weight, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, very low-density cholesterol, triglycerides, A1c, fasting plasma glucose, and C-reactive protein. Differences in systolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, free fatty acids, and fasting serum insulin did not achieve significance.

Overall, 19.8% of patients permanently discontinued treatment, with the most discontinuations in the liraglutide group (27.6%), followed by placebo (17.6%) and semaglutide (3.5%). Time to first and permanent discontinuation were shorter with liraglutide than with semaglutide or placebo.

Adverse events were reported by 95.2% of patients with semaglutide, 96.1% with liraglutide, and 95.3% with placebo. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common with the two active drugs, reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide versus 55.3% with placebo.

Most side effects were mild to moderate and resolved without treatment discontinuation. Severe gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by only 3.2%, 2.4%, and 3.5% of patients with semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo, respectively.

“This trial found weight loss with semaglutide was significantly greater than with liraglutide. However, the variability in treatment response means an individual’s tolerance and sensitivity to a specific treatment is important for obesity management,” the researchers observe.

“Therefore, having multiple antiobesity medications proven to lower body weight through different mechanisms, with different adverse effect profiles and dosing regimens, can only benefit clinicians and patients,” they conclude.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rubino has reported being a clinical investigator for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; receiving honoraria from WebMD; receiving speaker fees, consulting fees, scientific advisory fees, and honoraria from Novo Nordisk; receiving grants from SARL and personal fees from Medscape, PeerView, and the Endocrine Society; and being a shareholder in Novo Nordisk.

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

A study showing that once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) produces greater long-term weight loss than once-daily injected liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes has now been published.

The data, previously reported at Obesity Week 2021, were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA.

The findings are from the phase 3 Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 8 trial by Domenica M. Rubino, MD, of the Washington Center for Weight Management and Research, Arlington, Virginia, and colleagues.

Semaglutide and liraglutide, subcutaneously injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, were both first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States and elsewhere, but are now also approved, in different doses, for chronic weight management and in people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities. A phase 2 trial demonstrated that once-daily semaglutide 0.4 mg produced significantly more weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg.

“Semaglutide and liraglutide induce weight loss by lowering energy intake. However, the reduction in caloric intake versus placebo appears to be larger with semaglutide (35%) than liraglutide (approximately 16%),” say Dr. Rubino and colleagues.

“Semaglutide has also been associated with reductions in food cravings, which is less evident with liraglutide, suggesting different mechanisms of energy intake regulation,” they add.   

Novo Nordisk has recently reported that there may be supply problems with Wegovy, as a contract manufacturer that fills syringes for pens to inject the drug temporarily halted deliveries and manufacturing after issues related to good manufacturing practice.

The company is also developing an oral form of semaglutide for weight loss. The oral form has already been approved in doses of 7 or 14 mg/day for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States as Rybelsus.

Individualize treatment for those with obesity

STEP 8 was a randomized, open-label, 68-week phase 3b trial of 338 adults randomized to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 126), once-daily liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 127), or matched injected placebo (n = 85) for 68 weeks, all provided with counseling on diet and physical activity.  

The primary outcome – estimated mean change in body weight at week 68 – was –15.8% with semaglutide versus –6.4% with liraglutide, a significant difference (P < .001). The proportions of patients achieving loss of body weight of 10%, 15%, or 20% were 70.9%, 55.6%, and 38.5% with semaglutide versus 25.6%, 12.0%, and 6.0% with liraglutide, respectively.

Significantly greater reductions were also seen at 68 weeks for weekly semaglutide versus daily liraglutide in absolute body weight, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, very low-density cholesterol, triglycerides, A1c, fasting plasma glucose, and C-reactive protein. Differences in systolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, free fatty acids, and fasting serum insulin did not achieve significance.

Overall, 19.8% of patients permanently discontinued treatment, with the most discontinuations in the liraglutide group (27.6%), followed by placebo (17.6%) and semaglutide (3.5%). Time to first and permanent discontinuation were shorter with liraglutide than with semaglutide or placebo.

Adverse events were reported by 95.2% of patients with semaglutide, 96.1% with liraglutide, and 95.3% with placebo. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common with the two active drugs, reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide versus 55.3% with placebo.

Most side effects were mild to moderate and resolved without treatment discontinuation. Severe gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by only 3.2%, 2.4%, and 3.5% of patients with semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo, respectively.

“This trial found weight loss with semaglutide was significantly greater than with liraglutide. However, the variability in treatment response means an individual’s tolerance and sensitivity to a specific treatment is important for obesity management,” the researchers observe.

“Therefore, having multiple antiobesity medications proven to lower body weight through different mechanisms, with different adverse effect profiles and dosing regimens, can only benefit clinicians and patients,” they conclude.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rubino has reported being a clinical investigator for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; receiving honoraria from WebMD; receiving speaker fees, consulting fees, scientific advisory fees, and honoraria from Novo Nordisk; receiving grants from SARL and personal fees from Medscape, PeerView, and the Endocrine Society; and being a shareholder in Novo Nordisk.

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

A study showing that once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) produces greater long-term weight loss than once-daily injected liraglutide 3.0 mg (Saxenda, Novo Nordisk) among adults with overweight or obesity without diabetes has now been published.

The data, previously reported at Obesity Week 2021, were published online Jan. 11 in JAMA.

The findings are from the phase 3 Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 8 trial by Domenica M. Rubino, MD, of the Washington Center for Weight Management and Research, Arlington, Virginia, and colleagues.

Semaglutide and liraglutide, subcutaneously injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, were both first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States and elsewhere, but are now also approved, in different doses, for chronic weight management and in people with obesity or overweight and comorbidities. A phase 2 trial demonstrated that once-daily semaglutide 0.4 mg produced significantly more weight loss than liraglutide 3.0 mg.

“Semaglutide and liraglutide induce weight loss by lowering energy intake. However, the reduction in caloric intake versus placebo appears to be larger with semaglutide (35%) than liraglutide (approximately 16%),” say Dr. Rubino and colleagues.

“Semaglutide has also been associated with reductions in food cravings, which is less evident with liraglutide, suggesting different mechanisms of energy intake regulation,” they add.   

Novo Nordisk has recently reported that there may be supply problems with Wegovy, as a contract manufacturer that fills syringes for pens to inject the drug temporarily halted deliveries and manufacturing after issues related to good manufacturing practice.

The company is also developing an oral form of semaglutide for weight loss. The oral form has already been approved in doses of 7 or 14 mg/day for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States as Rybelsus.

Individualize treatment for those with obesity

STEP 8 was a randomized, open-label, 68-week phase 3b trial of 338 adults randomized to once-weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 126), once-daily liraglutide 3.0 mg (n = 127), or matched injected placebo (n = 85) for 68 weeks, all provided with counseling on diet and physical activity.  

The primary outcome – estimated mean change in body weight at week 68 – was –15.8% with semaglutide versus –6.4% with liraglutide, a significant difference (P < .001). The proportions of patients achieving loss of body weight of 10%, 15%, or 20% were 70.9%, 55.6%, and 38.5% with semaglutide versus 25.6%, 12.0%, and 6.0% with liraglutide, respectively.

Significantly greater reductions were also seen at 68 weeks for weekly semaglutide versus daily liraglutide in absolute body weight, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, very low-density cholesterol, triglycerides, A1c, fasting plasma glucose, and C-reactive protein. Differences in systolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, free fatty acids, and fasting serum insulin did not achieve significance.

Overall, 19.8% of patients permanently discontinued treatment, with the most discontinuations in the liraglutide group (27.6%), followed by placebo (17.6%) and semaglutide (3.5%). Time to first and permanent discontinuation were shorter with liraglutide than with semaglutide or placebo.

Adverse events were reported by 95.2% of patients with semaglutide, 96.1% with liraglutide, and 95.3% with placebo. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most common with the two active drugs, reported by 84.1% with semaglutide and 82.7% with liraglutide versus 55.3% with placebo.

Most side effects were mild to moderate and resolved without treatment discontinuation. Severe gastrointestinal adverse events were reported by only 3.2%, 2.4%, and 3.5% of patients with semaglutide, liraglutide, and placebo, respectively.

“This trial found weight loss with semaglutide was significantly greater than with liraglutide. However, the variability in treatment response means an individual’s tolerance and sensitivity to a specific treatment is important for obesity management,” the researchers observe.

“Therefore, having multiple antiobesity medications proven to lower body weight through different mechanisms, with different adverse effect profiles and dosing regimens, can only benefit clinicians and patients,” they conclude.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Rubino has reported being a clinical investigator for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; receiving honoraria from WebMD; receiving speaker fees, consulting fees, scientific advisory fees, and honoraria from Novo Nordisk; receiving grants from SARL and personal fees from Medscape, PeerView, and the Endocrine Society; and being a shareholder in Novo Nordisk.

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

A new document from the American Heart Association summarizes the latest research on cardiovascular risk factor management in type 2 diabetes, including medications, lifestyle, and social determinants of health.

Despite the availability of effective therapies for improving cardiovascular risk, in the United States fewer than one in five people with type 2 diabetes and without known cardiovascular disease meet control targets for a combination of A1c, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and nonsmoking status.

Volkan Ünalan/Thinkstock

That proportion drops to less than 1 in 10 if body mass index less than 30 kg/m² is included among the targets, and even less than that among individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Joshua J. Joseph, MD, and colleagues point out in their paper, published online Jan. 10 in Circulation.

“This new scientific statement is an urgent call to action to follow the latest evidence-based approaches and to develop new best practices to advance type 2 diabetes treatment and care and reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” wrote Dr. Joseph, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors.

The statement is not a guideline but an expert analysis that may inform future clinical practice guidelines, according to a press release from the AHA.

The new statement reviews evidence through June 2020 for lifestyle management of diabetes and weight, glycemic targets and control, blood pressure management, lipid management, antithrombotic therapy, and screening for cardiovascular and renal complications, including imaging. It also discusses the clinical implications of recent cardiovascular outcomes trials of newer glucose-lowering medications.

However, Dr. Joseph and colleagues point out, clinical care and treatment account for just 10%-20% of modifiable contributors to health outcomes. The other 80%-90% relate to social determinants of health, including health-related behaviors, socioeconomic factors, environmental factors, and racism.

“If we are to continue to advance the management of cardiovascular risk factors, we must also address the [social determinants of health] in the delivery of health care,” they noted.

Overall, they advise a patient-centered approach, meaning “reframing our clinical encounters to think about patients as people who live in families, communities, and societies that must be considered in their cardiovascular risk management.”

“People with [type 2 diabetes] face numerous barriers to health including access to care and equitable care, which must be considered when developing individualized care plans with our patients,” Dr. Joseph said in the AHA press release.
 

Lifestyle, medications for lowering A1c, BP, lipids

For lifestyle management, the authors say, “culturally appropriate recommendations through diabetes self-management education and support and medical nutrition therapy are key to meeting individualized goals for behavioral change and diabetes self-management.”

The document summarizes recommendations from other professional societies regarding glycemic targets and glucose lowering medications, i.e., target A1c levels of either < 7% or < 6.5% for the majority, with adjustments based on individual factors, such as life expectancy. It advises on use of metformin as first-line therapy followed by a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist for those with established cardiovascular disease or risk factors.

“Cost may be a barrier to taking some [type 2 diabetes] medications as prescribed; however, many of these medications are now more commonly covered by more health insurance plans,” Dr. Joseph said.

“Another barrier is recognition by patients that these newer [type 2 diabetes] medications are also effective in reducing the risk of heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and kidney disease.”

Blood pressure treatment guidelines differ between those of the AHA/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA), most notably that the AHA/ACC guidelines advise a general target of < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas ADA advises < 140/90 mm Hg or < 130/80 mm Hg for those with high risk if it can be safely achieved.

The decision should be “patient-centered with shared decision-making,” Dr. Joseph and colleagues advised.

For lipid-lowering, the document cites the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines, which include advising statins as first-line therapy for both primary and secondary prevention in diabetes, with highest intensity statins used in those at highest risk. But again, treatment should be individualized, and other agents should be used for patients in whom statins don’t work or aren’t tolerated.

And while use of antiplatelets – that is, aspirin – is well established as secondary prevention in type 2 diabetes, given new data suggesting that the risk for major bleeding could outweigh the benefits for primary prevention, “the relative benefits of antithrombotic approaches need to be weighed carefully against risks using a patient-centered approach,” the authors advised.

Among the many imaging tests available to facilitate cardiovascular risk stratification in type 2 diabetes, coronary artery calcification (CAC) CT screening is one of the few with sufficient data to support routine use in selected patients. The National Lipid Association, for example, recommends escalation to high-intensity statin for CAC > 100.

“One avenue to continue to address and advance diabetes management is through breaking down the four walls of the clinic or hospital through community engagement, clinic-to-community connections, and academic-community-government partnerships that may help address and support modifiable lifestyle behaviors such as physical activity, nutrition, smoking cessation and stress management,” Dr. Joseph concluded.

The AHA receives funding primarily from individuals. Foundations and corporations, including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers, and other companies, also make donations and fund AHA programs and events. The AHA’s strict policies prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, device manufacturers, and health insurance providers and the AHA’s financial information are available on the association’s website. Dr. Joseph has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new document from the American Heart Association summarizes the latest research on cardiovascular risk factor management in type 2 diabetes, including medications, lifestyle, and social determinants of health.

Despite the availability of effective therapies for improving cardiovascular risk, in the United States fewer than one in five people with type 2 diabetes and without known cardiovascular disease meet control targets for a combination of A1c, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and nonsmoking status.

Volkan Ünalan/Thinkstock

That proportion drops to less than 1 in 10 if body mass index less than 30 kg/m² is included among the targets, and even less than that among individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Joshua J. Joseph, MD, and colleagues point out in their paper, published online Jan. 10 in Circulation.

“This new scientific statement is an urgent call to action to follow the latest evidence-based approaches and to develop new best practices to advance type 2 diabetes treatment and care and reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” wrote Dr. Joseph, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors.

The statement is not a guideline but an expert analysis that may inform future clinical practice guidelines, according to a press release from the AHA.

The new statement reviews evidence through June 2020 for lifestyle management of diabetes and weight, glycemic targets and control, blood pressure management, lipid management, antithrombotic therapy, and screening for cardiovascular and renal complications, including imaging. It also discusses the clinical implications of recent cardiovascular outcomes trials of newer glucose-lowering medications.

However, Dr. Joseph and colleagues point out, clinical care and treatment account for just 10%-20% of modifiable contributors to health outcomes. The other 80%-90% relate to social determinants of health, including health-related behaviors, socioeconomic factors, environmental factors, and racism.

“If we are to continue to advance the management of cardiovascular risk factors, we must also address the [social determinants of health] in the delivery of health care,” they noted.

Overall, they advise a patient-centered approach, meaning “reframing our clinical encounters to think about patients as people who live in families, communities, and societies that must be considered in their cardiovascular risk management.”

“People with [type 2 diabetes] face numerous barriers to health including access to care and equitable care, which must be considered when developing individualized care plans with our patients,” Dr. Joseph said in the AHA press release.
 

Lifestyle, medications for lowering A1c, BP, lipids

For lifestyle management, the authors say, “culturally appropriate recommendations through diabetes self-management education and support and medical nutrition therapy are key to meeting individualized goals for behavioral change and diabetes self-management.”

The document summarizes recommendations from other professional societies regarding glycemic targets and glucose lowering medications, i.e., target A1c levels of either < 7% or < 6.5% for the majority, with adjustments based on individual factors, such as life expectancy. It advises on use of metformin as first-line therapy followed by a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist for those with established cardiovascular disease or risk factors.

“Cost may be a barrier to taking some [type 2 diabetes] medications as prescribed; however, many of these medications are now more commonly covered by more health insurance plans,” Dr. Joseph said.

“Another barrier is recognition by patients that these newer [type 2 diabetes] medications are also effective in reducing the risk of heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and kidney disease.”

Blood pressure treatment guidelines differ between those of the AHA/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA), most notably that the AHA/ACC guidelines advise a general target of < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas ADA advises < 140/90 mm Hg or < 130/80 mm Hg for those with high risk if it can be safely achieved.

The decision should be “patient-centered with shared decision-making,” Dr. Joseph and colleagues advised.

For lipid-lowering, the document cites the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines, which include advising statins as first-line therapy for both primary and secondary prevention in diabetes, with highest intensity statins used in those at highest risk. But again, treatment should be individualized, and other agents should be used for patients in whom statins don’t work or aren’t tolerated.

And while use of antiplatelets – that is, aspirin – is well established as secondary prevention in type 2 diabetes, given new data suggesting that the risk for major bleeding could outweigh the benefits for primary prevention, “the relative benefits of antithrombotic approaches need to be weighed carefully against risks using a patient-centered approach,” the authors advised.

Among the many imaging tests available to facilitate cardiovascular risk stratification in type 2 diabetes, coronary artery calcification (CAC) CT screening is one of the few with sufficient data to support routine use in selected patients. The National Lipid Association, for example, recommends escalation to high-intensity statin for CAC > 100.

“One avenue to continue to address and advance diabetes management is through breaking down the four walls of the clinic or hospital through community engagement, clinic-to-community connections, and academic-community-government partnerships that may help address and support modifiable lifestyle behaviors such as physical activity, nutrition, smoking cessation and stress management,” Dr. Joseph concluded.

The AHA receives funding primarily from individuals. Foundations and corporations, including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers, and other companies, also make donations and fund AHA programs and events. The AHA’s strict policies prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, device manufacturers, and health insurance providers and the AHA’s financial information are available on the association’s website. Dr. Joseph has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new document from the American Heart Association summarizes the latest research on cardiovascular risk factor management in type 2 diabetes, including medications, lifestyle, and social determinants of health.

Despite the availability of effective therapies for improving cardiovascular risk, in the United States fewer than one in five people with type 2 diabetes and without known cardiovascular disease meet control targets for a combination of A1c, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and nonsmoking status.

Volkan Ünalan/Thinkstock

That proportion drops to less than 1 in 10 if body mass index less than 30 kg/m² is included among the targets, and even less than that among individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Joshua J. Joseph, MD, and colleagues point out in their paper, published online Jan. 10 in Circulation.

“This new scientific statement is an urgent call to action to follow the latest evidence-based approaches and to develop new best practices to advance type 2 diabetes treatment and care and reduce cardiovascular disease risk,” wrote Dr. Joseph, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors.

The statement is not a guideline but an expert analysis that may inform future clinical practice guidelines, according to a press release from the AHA.

The new statement reviews evidence through June 2020 for lifestyle management of diabetes and weight, glycemic targets and control, blood pressure management, lipid management, antithrombotic therapy, and screening for cardiovascular and renal complications, including imaging. It also discusses the clinical implications of recent cardiovascular outcomes trials of newer glucose-lowering medications.

However, Dr. Joseph and colleagues point out, clinical care and treatment account for just 10%-20% of modifiable contributors to health outcomes. The other 80%-90% relate to social determinants of health, including health-related behaviors, socioeconomic factors, environmental factors, and racism.

“If we are to continue to advance the management of cardiovascular risk factors, we must also address the [social determinants of health] in the delivery of health care,” they noted.

Overall, they advise a patient-centered approach, meaning “reframing our clinical encounters to think about patients as people who live in families, communities, and societies that must be considered in their cardiovascular risk management.”

“People with [type 2 diabetes] face numerous barriers to health including access to care and equitable care, which must be considered when developing individualized care plans with our patients,” Dr. Joseph said in the AHA press release.
 

Lifestyle, medications for lowering A1c, BP, lipids

For lifestyle management, the authors say, “culturally appropriate recommendations through diabetes self-management education and support and medical nutrition therapy are key to meeting individualized goals for behavioral change and diabetes self-management.”

The document summarizes recommendations from other professional societies regarding glycemic targets and glucose lowering medications, i.e., target A1c levels of either < 7% or < 6.5% for the majority, with adjustments based on individual factors, such as life expectancy. It advises on use of metformin as first-line therapy followed by a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist for those with established cardiovascular disease or risk factors.

“Cost may be a barrier to taking some [type 2 diabetes] medications as prescribed; however, many of these medications are now more commonly covered by more health insurance plans,” Dr. Joseph said.

“Another barrier is recognition by patients that these newer [type 2 diabetes] medications are also effective in reducing the risk of heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and kidney disease.”

Blood pressure treatment guidelines differ between those of the AHA/American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA), most notably that the AHA/ACC guidelines advise a general target of < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas ADA advises < 140/90 mm Hg or < 130/80 mm Hg for those with high risk if it can be safely achieved.

The decision should be “patient-centered with shared decision-making,” Dr. Joseph and colleagues advised.

For lipid-lowering, the document cites the 2018 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines, which include advising statins as first-line therapy for both primary and secondary prevention in diabetes, with highest intensity statins used in those at highest risk. But again, treatment should be individualized, and other agents should be used for patients in whom statins don’t work or aren’t tolerated.

And while use of antiplatelets – that is, aspirin – is well established as secondary prevention in type 2 diabetes, given new data suggesting that the risk for major bleeding could outweigh the benefits for primary prevention, “the relative benefits of antithrombotic approaches need to be weighed carefully against risks using a patient-centered approach,” the authors advised.

Among the many imaging tests available to facilitate cardiovascular risk stratification in type 2 diabetes, coronary artery calcification (CAC) CT screening is one of the few with sufficient data to support routine use in selected patients. The National Lipid Association, for example, recommends escalation to high-intensity statin for CAC > 100.

“One avenue to continue to address and advance diabetes management is through breaking down the four walls of the clinic or hospital through community engagement, clinic-to-community connections, and academic-community-government partnerships that may help address and support modifiable lifestyle behaviors such as physical activity, nutrition, smoking cessation and stress management,” Dr. Joseph concluded.

The AHA receives funding primarily from individuals. Foundations and corporations, including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers, and other companies, also make donations and fund AHA programs and events. The AHA’s strict policies prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and biotech companies, device manufacturers, and health insurance providers and the AHA’s financial information are available on the association’s website. Dr. Joseph has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.

The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.

“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.

The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”

However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
 

Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits

Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).

Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).

Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.

On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.

All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
 

Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups

While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).

By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).

And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.

“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.

The authors have no disclosures.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.

The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.

“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.

The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”

However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
 

Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits

Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).

Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).

Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.

On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.

All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
 

Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups

While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).

By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).

And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.

“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.

The authors have no disclosures.

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors show “remarkable consistency of class benefit” for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk people across age, sex, and race/ethnicity categories.

The findings, from a meta-analysis of 10 major randomized clinical trials, were published online Jan. 5, 2021, in JAMA Network Open by Mukul Bhattarai, MD, a cardiology fellow at Southern Illinois University, Springfield, and colleagues.

“Our meta-analysis evaluated a wide spectrum of efficacy outcomes, further characterizing the primary outcome in different subgroups from several well-designed large clinical trials. It supports that SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as an effective class of drugs for improving cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, including the prevention of [hospitalization for heart failure] and reducing all-cause mortality in selected patients,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues wrote.

The cardiovascular outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, they noted, “can be compared across all trials, and it demonstrates remarkable consistency of class benefit, despite the variations in populations enrolled.”

However, they also noted that SGLT inhibitors did not reduce the risk of acute MIn overall, and that most of the trials were short term, with a mean follow-up of just 2.3 years.
 

Ten trials, consistent cardiovascular benefits

Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues searched the literature through Jan. 10, 2021, as well as meeting presentations and other sources. They identified 10 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials in which participants had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or ASCVD risk factors, diabetes, or heart failure. Among a total of 71,553 high-risk patients, 39,053 received an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32,500 received a placebo.

The primary outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 8.10% randomized to SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 11.56% in the placebo group, a significant difference with odds ratio 0.67 (P < .001). Both individual outcomes were lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group, with a number needed to treat of 5.7 (P < .001).

Patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors also had significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death due to cardiovascular causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. Those events occurred in 9.82% versus 10.22%(OR, 0.90; P = .03).

Hospitalizations and ED visits with heart failure were also reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors (4.37% vs. 6.81%; OR, 0.67; P < .001), as was cardiovascular death (4.65% vs. 5.14%; OR, 0.87; P = .009). The reduction in heart failure is likely caused by a combination of a natriuretic effect and reduced interstitial fluid, along with inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, the authors said.

On the other hand, no reductions were seen in acute MI, evaluated in five of the studies. That event occurred in 4.66% taking SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with 4.70% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference with an OR of 0.95 (P = 0.22). This is likely because of the fact that SGLT2 inhibitors don’t have known antianginal properties or vasodilatory effects, they don’t reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and they don’t prevent cardiac muscle remodeling, they noted.

All-cause mortality was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors, though, at 7.09% versus 7.86% (odds ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
 

Benefits seen across age, sex, and race/ethnicity subgroups

While no differences in benefit were found between men and women when compared with placebo groups, the rates of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalizations were slightly higher in men than in women (9.01% [OR, 0.75; P < .001] vs. 5.34% [OR, 0.78; P = .002]).

By age, SGLT2 inhibitors benefited people both those younger than 65 years and those aged 65 years and older, although the primary outcome was slightly lower in the younger group (6.94% [OR, 0.79; P < 0.001] vs. 10.47% [OR, 0.78; P < .001]).

And by race, similar benefits from SGLT2 inhibitors were seen among individuals who were White, compared with those who were Asian, Black, or of other race/ethnicity, with event rates of 8.77% (OR, 0.82; P < .001) and 8.75% (OR, 0.66; P = .06), respectively.

“Owing to the short-term trial durations, future long-term prospective studies and postmarketing surveillance studies are warranted to discover the rate of cardiovascular outcomes,” Dr. Bhattarai and colleagues concluded.

The authors have no disclosures.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finalized a rule to expand Medicare coverage to include continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices that are not approved for making treatment decisions.

Proposed in November 2020, the final CMS rule applies primarily to CGMs that integrate with Medtronic insulin pumps. Those CGMs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingerstick blood glucose measurements in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Other CGM systems, Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and were already covered under Medicare, as was the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ technology system.

The expanded coverage means that people using the Medtronic 770G or 630G hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems will receive coverage for all the systems’ components, and that people aging into Medicare won’t lose any coverage for those devices.

Medtronic will continue to offer its CGM Access Discount to all Medicare customers until the ruling takes effect. The proposed rule was finalized on Dec. 21, 2021, and will be effective starting 60 days after official publication.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finalized a rule to expand Medicare coverage to include continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices that are not approved for making treatment decisions.

Proposed in November 2020, the final CMS rule applies primarily to CGMs that integrate with Medtronic insulin pumps. Those CGMs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingerstick blood glucose measurements in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Other CGM systems, Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and were already covered under Medicare, as was the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ technology system.

The expanded coverage means that people using the Medtronic 770G or 630G hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems will receive coverage for all the systems’ components, and that people aging into Medicare won’t lose any coverage for those devices.

Medtronic will continue to offer its CGM Access Discount to all Medicare customers until the ruling takes effect. The proposed rule was finalized on Dec. 21, 2021, and will be effective starting 60 days after official publication.

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has finalized a rule to expand Medicare coverage to include continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices that are not approved for making treatment decisions.

Proposed in November 2020, the final CMS rule applies primarily to CGMs that integrate with Medtronic insulin pumps. Those CGMs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to replace the need for fingerstick blood glucose measurements in determining insulin or other glucose-lowering medication dosing.

Other CGM systems, Dexcom G6 and Abbott Libre, have “therapeutic” indications and were already covered under Medicare, as was the combined insulin pump–CGM Tandem Diabetes Care Control-IQ technology system.

The expanded coverage means that people using the Medtronic 770G or 630G hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems will receive coverage for all the systems’ components, and that people aging into Medicare won’t lose any coverage for those devices.

Medtronic will continue to offer its CGM Access Discount to all Medicare customers until the ruling takes effect. The proposed rule was finalized on Dec. 21, 2021, and will be effective starting 60 days after official publication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved levoketoconazole (Recorlev, Xeris Biopharma) for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adults with Cushing syndrome for whom surgery is not possible or was not curative.

Endogenous Cushing syndrome is a relatively rare condition characterized by chronically elevated cortisol levels, typically arising from a benign pituitary tumor. Left untreated, it can lead to reproductive problems and hirsutism in women, as well as serious complications, including diabetes, hypertension, tissue fragility, and mood disorders. Half of patients will die within 5 years if left untreated.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved levoketoconazole (Recorlev, Xeris Biopharma) for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adults with Cushing syndrome for whom surgery is not possible or was not curative.

Endogenous Cushing syndrome is a relatively rare condition characterized by chronically elevated cortisol levels, typically arising from a benign pituitary tumor. Left untreated, it can lead to reproductive problems and hirsutism in women, as well as serious complications, including diabetes, hypertension, tissue fragility, and mood disorders. Half of patients will die within 5 years if left untreated.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved levoketoconazole (Recorlev, Xeris Biopharma) for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adults with Cushing syndrome for whom surgery is not possible or was not curative.

Endogenous Cushing syndrome is a relatively rare condition characterized by chronically elevated cortisol levels, typically arising from a benign pituitary tumor. Left untreated, it can lead to reproductive problems and hirsutism in women, as well as serious complications, including diabetes, hypertension, tissue fragility, and mood disorders. Half of patients will die within 5 years if left untreated.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

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