Miriam E. Tucker

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management System, a cap device that connects to insulin pens and translates continuous glucose data into dosing recommendations, for use in individuals aged 12 and older.

The Bigfoot Unity System has three primary components – proprietary smart pen caps for both rapid- and long-acting insulin, a mobile app, and an integrated FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (iCGM) sensor, which was FDA-cleared in June 2020 – that fit into the person’s dose-decision process when they need it throughout the day.

It allows the user to scan the FreeStyle Libre 2 sensor, displaying the user’s current glucose value, trend arrow, and recommended correction dose. The smart pen cap also directly displays the health care provider’s suggested meal insulin doses with the correction dose. In just a few steps the system gives the person with diabetes support to make real-time treatment decisions.

It also includes hypoglycemia alerts and is compatible with all major U.S. brands of rapid- and long-acting disposable insulin pens.  

Health care providers can monitor the patient’s data through a secure web portal called the Bigfoot Clinic Hub.

JDRF said in a statement it “applauds the U.S. FDA on its decision to provide clearance for the Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management by Bigfoot Biomedical.”

The new system “fills a critical gap and brings benefits of automation and device interconnectedness to people with diabetes who rely on multiple daily injections to manage their blood sugar levels.” It is a “win for both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes communities as it broadens the options of treatment to alleviate daily burdens.”
 

Growing market for smart insulin pens

The device is the latest advance in the “smart pen” field of semiautomated insulin delivery in which pen and compatible devices, software, and platforms are teamed up in various combinations to provide easier insulin dosing for patients with diabetes who require multiple daily injections but don’t wear insulin pumps.

On May 6, 2021, Eli Lilly announced it had signed “strategic international agreements” with Dexcom, Glooko, MyDiabby Healthcare, and Roche to provide platforms or devices compatible with Lilly’s prefilled Tempo Pen, which is already available in several global markets, and the Tempo Smart Button, currently in late-stage development and pending CE mark.  

And in November 2020, Medtronic launched a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated CGM called the InPen. The reusable insulin injector pen uses a smartphone app to calculate dosing of short-acting insulin based on CGM readings and allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information. It was originally launched in 2017 by Companion Medical, and the company was acquired by Medtronic in September 2020.

Novo Nordisk and Sanofi are also developing products in the smart pen space.

More information about the Bigfoot Unity Program is available here.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management System, a cap device that connects to insulin pens and translates continuous glucose data into dosing recommendations, for use in individuals aged 12 and older.

The Bigfoot Unity System has three primary components – proprietary smart pen caps for both rapid- and long-acting insulin, a mobile app, and an integrated FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (iCGM) sensor, which was FDA-cleared in June 2020 – that fit into the person’s dose-decision process when they need it throughout the day.

It allows the user to scan the FreeStyle Libre 2 sensor, displaying the user’s current glucose value, trend arrow, and recommended correction dose. The smart pen cap also directly displays the health care provider’s suggested meal insulin doses with the correction dose. In just a few steps the system gives the person with diabetes support to make real-time treatment decisions.

It also includes hypoglycemia alerts and is compatible with all major U.S. brands of rapid- and long-acting disposable insulin pens.  

Health care providers can monitor the patient’s data through a secure web portal called the Bigfoot Clinic Hub.

JDRF said in a statement it “applauds the U.S. FDA on its decision to provide clearance for the Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management by Bigfoot Biomedical.”

The new system “fills a critical gap and brings benefits of automation and device interconnectedness to people with diabetes who rely on multiple daily injections to manage their blood sugar levels.” It is a “win for both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes communities as it broadens the options of treatment to alleviate daily burdens.”
 

Growing market for smart insulin pens

The device is the latest advance in the “smart pen” field of semiautomated insulin delivery in which pen and compatible devices, software, and platforms are teamed up in various combinations to provide easier insulin dosing for patients with diabetes who require multiple daily injections but don’t wear insulin pumps.

On May 6, 2021, Eli Lilly announced it had signed “strategic international agreements” with Dexcom, Glooko, MyDiabby Healthcare, and Roche to provide platforms or devices compatible with Lilly’s prefilled Tempo Pen, which is already available in several global markets, and the Tempo Smart Button, currently in late-stage development and pending CE mark.  

And in November 2020, Medtronic launched a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated CGM called the InPen. The reusable insulin injector pen uses a smartphone app to calculate dosing of short-acting insulin based on CGM readings and allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information. It was originally launched in 2017 by Companion Medical, and the company was acquired by Medtronic in September 2020.

Novo Nordisk and Sanofi are also developing products in the smart pen space.

More information about the Bigfoot Unity Program is available here.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management System, a cap device that connects to insulin pens and translates continuous glucose data into dosing recommendations, for use in individuals aged 12 and older.

The Bigfoot Unity System has three primary components – proprietary smart pen caps for both rapid- and long-acting insulin, a mobile app, and an integrated FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitor (iCGM) sensor, which was FDA-cleared in June 2020 – that fit into the person’s dose-decision process when they need it throughout the day.

It allows the user to scan the FreeStyle Libre 2 sensor, displaying the user’s current glucose value, trend arrow, and recommended correction dose. The smart pen cap also directly displays the health care provider’s suggested meal insulin doses with the correction dose. In just a few steps the system gives the person with diabetes support to make real-time treatment decisions.

It also includes hypoglycemia alerts and is compatible with all major U.S. brands of rapid- and long-acting disposable insulin pens.  

Health care providers can monitor the patient’s data through a secure web portal called the Bigfoot Clinic Hub.

JDRF said in a statement it “applauds the U.S. FDA on its decision to provide clearance for the Bigfoot Unity Diabetes Management by Bigfoot Biomedical.”

The new system “fills a critical gap and brings benefits of automation and device interconnectedness to people with diabetes who rely on multiple daily injections to manage their blood sugar levels.” It is a “win for both the type 1 and type 2 diabetes communities as it broadens the options of treatment to alleviate daily burdens.”
 

Growing market for smart insulin pens

The device is the latest advance in the “smart pen” field of semiautomated insulin delivery in which pen and compatible devices, software, and platforms are teamed up in various combinations to provide easier insulin dosing for patients with diabetes who require multiple daily injections but don’t wear insulin pumps.

On May 6, 2021, Eli Lilly announced it had signed “strategic international agreements” with Dexcom, Glooko, MyDiabby Healthcare, and Roche to provide platforms or devices compatible with Lilly’s prefilled Tempo Pen, which is already available in several global markets, and the Tempo Smart Button, currently in late-stage development and pending CE mark.  

And in November 2020, Medtronic launched a new version of its smart insulin pen with integrated CGM called the InPen. The reusable insulin injector pen uses a smartphone app to calculate dosing of short-acting insulin based on CGM readings and allows users to view glucose readings and insulin dose information. It was originally launched in 2017 by Companion Medical, and the company was acquired by Medtronic in September 2020.

Novo Nordisk and Sanofi are also developing products in the smart pen space.

More information about the Bigfoot Unity Program is available here.

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

Initiatives targeting hypoglycemia and insulin pen wastage could lead to dramatic cost savings in small community hospitals, new data suggest.

The two projects are part of a dedicated inpatient glucose management service led by Mihail (“Misha”) Zilbermint, MD, one of the few full-time endocrine hospitalists in the United States and one of even fewer who work at a small community hospital.

In 2019, Dr. Zilbermint and colleagues reported that their inpatient glucose management program resulted in a 27% reduction in length of stay and a 10.7% lower 30-day readmission rate. The projected cost savings for the period January 2016 to May 2017 was $953,578.

Dr. Zilbermint’s team has written two new articles that document cost savings for specific elements of the program; namely, a set of hospital-wide hypoglycemia prevention measures, and an initiative that reduced duplicate inpatient insulin pen dispensing.

About 1 in 4 people in U.S. hospitals have diabetes or hyperglycemia. Large academic hospitals have endocrine divisions and training programs, but 85% of people receive care at small community hospitals.

“There are management guidelines, but they’re not always followed ... That’s why I’ve been advocating for endocrine hospitalists to be deployed nationally,” Dr. Zilbermint said. He is chief and director of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Johns Hopkins Community Physicians at Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland.

Asked to comment on behalf of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), Greg Maynard, MD, program lead for SHM’s Electronic Quality Improvement Programs, said that Suburban’s overall program goals align with those of the SHM.

“Dedicated inpatient glycemic control teams are very important and desirable to improve the quality and safety of care for inpatients with hyperglycemia and diabetes,” he said.

Regarding specific initiatives, such as those aimed at reducing hypoglycemia and insulin pen wastage, Dr. Maynard said, “All of these are feasible in a wide variety of institutions. The main barrier is getting the institutional support for people to work on these interventions. This series of studies can help spread the word about the positive return on investment.”

Another barrier – the current lack of publicly reported measures or pay-for-performance programs for hypoglycemia prevention and glycemic control – may soon change, added Dr. Maynard, who is also chief quality officer at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center.

“The National Quality Forum has endorsed new measures, and the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network is working on ways to augment those measures and embed them into their infrastructure,” he said.

Although SHM doesn’t specifically endorse full-time glycemic control hospitalists over endocrinology-trained glycemic control experts, “certainly hospitalists who accrue added training are very well positioned to be an important part of these interdisciplinary teams,” Dr. Maynard said.
 

‘The nurses were so afraid of hypoglycemia’

Tackling hypoglycemia was Dr. Zilbermint’s first priority when he started the glycemic management program at Suburban in late 2015.

“One of the most common complaints from the nurses was that a lot of their patients had hypoglycemia, especially in the ICU, when patients were placed on insulin infusion protocols ... Every time, the nurse would have to call the attending and ask what to do,” he explains.

In addition, Dr. Zilbermint says, there was no standard for treating hypoglycemia. A nurse in one unit would give two cups of juice, another a 50% dextrose infusion, or another, milk. Even more concerning, “the nurses were so afraid of hypoglycemia they would reflexively discontinue all insulin, including basal.”

So one of the new initiatives, led by Carter Shelton, MSHCM, an administrative fellow at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, was to implement a set of hospital-wide hypoglycemia prevention measures, as described in an article published online April 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.
 

Inpatient hypoglycemia rate was cut nearly in half

This began in 2016, when the multidisciplinary Suburban Hospital Glucose Steering Committee identified four main causes of insulin-induced hypoglycemia (defined as a blood glucose level of ≤70 mg/dL in a patient who had received at least one dose of insulin in the past 24 hours) and devised solutions for each:

1. Lack of a unified hypoglycemia protocol. A formal, evidence-based, nurse-driven treatment protocol with clinical decision support in the electronic medical record was developed. The Suburban team adapted much of the protocol from one that had been recently implemented at the flagship Johns Hopkins Hospital, in Baltimore, Maryland.

According to that protocol, if patients are able to swallow, they are given 15 g or 30 g of carbohydrates in order to achieve a blood glucose level of 50 to 70 mg/dL and <50 mg/dL, respectively. Levels are checked 15 minutes later. Intravenous D50 or glucagon is reserved for patients who can’t swallow.

2. For patients in critical care, the insulin infusion protocol that had been in use set blood glucose targets of 80 to 110 mg/dL, which resulted in hypoglycemia in nearly every patient who received an insulin infusion. This protocol was changed to the currently recommended 140 to 180 mg/dL.

3. Most patients were managed with sliding-scale insulin, an outdated yet still widely used regimen whereby insulin is given based only on current blood glucose without accounting for carbohydrates consumed with meals and not corrected until the subsequent meal. This was changed so that nurses give insulin after the patient has consumed at least 50% of their meal carbohydrates.

4. Lack of hypoglycemia reporting. A glucometrics dashboard – now used throughout the Johns Hopkins system – was adopted to produce daily hypoglycemia reports in the EMR system that could be reviewed by the inpatient glucose management service to track quality metrics and plan further interventions.

Between Jan. 1, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2019, out of a total 49,315 patient-days, there were 2,682 days on which any hypoglycemia occurred and 874 days on which moderate hypoglycemia occurred (≤54 mg/dL). Type 2 diabetes accounted for 84.4% of the total patient-days; type 1 accounted for 4.4%.

The overall frequency of any hypoglycemia patient-days per month decreased from 7.5% to 3.9% during the study period (P = .001). This was significant for the patients with type 2 diabetes (7.4% to 3.8%; P < .0001) but not for those with type 1 diabetes (18.5% to 18.0%; P = .08).

Rates of moderate hypoglycemia also decreased significantly among the patients with type 2 diabetes (1.9% to 1.0%; P = .03) but not for those with type 1 diabetes (7.4% to 6.0%; P = .14).

On the basis of these rates in reducing hypoglycemia, in which the inpatient hypoglycemia rate was cut nearly in half, the estimated savings in cost of care to the hospital was $98,635 during the period of January 2016 to September 2019.
 

Reducing insulin pen waste by minimizing duplicate prescriptions

Suburban Hospital had been using insulin vials and syringes when Dr. Zilbermint first arrived there. He lobbied the administration to allow use of pens, because they’re easier to use and they reduce the risk for needlestick injuries. Nurses were educated and retrained monthly in their use.

The switch to pens – aspart (Novolog Flexpen) for bolus insulin and glargine (Lantus SoloSTAR) – took place in 2018. The cost of the aspart pen was $16.19, and the cost of glargine was $25.08. Each holds 300 units of insulin.

After the first month, the team noticed a large increase in expenses. A quality improvement project was devised to address the issue.

“We were dispensing sometimes three or four pens per person. That’s a lot. Each pen holds 300 units, so one pen should last the entire hospital stay of an average 4- or 5-day stay,” Dr. Zilbermint explained. “We had to figure out where we were bleeding the money and where the pens were going.”

When pens disappeared, the pharmacy would have to dispense new ones. One problem was that when patients were transferred from one unit to another, the pen would be left behind and the room would be cleaned. Sometimes the pens weren’t stored properly or were misplaced. Often, they’d end up in a nurse’s pocket.

The second intervention was led by Urooj Najmi, MD, of the American International School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. A program was instituted to reduce duplicate inpatient insulin pen dispensing, as detailed in an article published in the same issue of the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

Solutions to reduce duplicate pen dispensing included having pharmacy track daily insulin pen reports and monitor duplicate orders, with “do not dispense” instructions conveyed via the EMR system. All multidose medications, including insulin pens, were to be placed in patients’ bins at the nursing station, and nurses were instructed to look for patients’ insulin pens prior to their being transferred to another unit, rather than ask for a replacement pen.

From July 2018 to July 2019, 3,121 patients received insulin, of whom 95% received aspart and 47% received glargine. Of the 9,516 pens dispensed, 68% were for aspart and 32% were for glargine. During the study period, the number of pens dispensed per patient dropped from 2.2 to 1.2 for aspart and from 2.1 to 1.3 for glargine; differences were highly significant (P = .0002 and P = .0005, respectively).

The total amount of unnecessary dispensing during the first 4 months after initiating the pen implementation program was 58%. The average monthly cost was $11,820.68; the projected cost per year was $141,848.

Six months after the waste reduction strategies were implemented, monthly waste had dropped to 42%, translating to an estimated potential cost savings of $66,261 over 12 months.

Because Suburban Hospital doesn’t have an outpatient dispensing license, there is still wastage when patients are discharged, because they can’t take their pens home with them. That remains a challenge, Dr. Zilbermint noted.

The team is working on implementing automatic A1c testing for patients admitted with hyperglycemia who either have a history of diabetes or whose blood glucose level is >140 mg/dL. Dr. Zilbermint said, “it’s in the guidelines, but it’s not always done.”

Dr. Zilbermint is a consultant for Guidepoint. Dr. Maynard, Mr. Shelton, and Dr. Najmi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initiatives targeting hypoglycemia and insulin pen wastage could lead to dramatic cost savings in small community hospitals, new data suggest.

The two projects are part of a dedicated inpatient glucose management service led by Mihail (“Misha”) Zilbermint, MD, one of the few full-time endocrine hospitalists in the United States and one of even fewer who work at a small community hospital.

In 2019, Dr. Zilbermint and colleagues reported that their inpatient glucose management program resulted in a 27% reduction in length of stay and a 10.7% lower 30-day readmission rate. The projected cost savings for the period January 2016 to May 2017 was $953,578.

Dr. Zilbermint’s team has written two new articles that document cost savings for specific elements of the program; namely, a set of hospital-wide hypoglycemia prevention measures, and an initiative that reduced duplicate inpatient insulin pen dispensing.

About 1 in 4 people in U.S. hospitals have diabetes or hyperglycemia. Large academic hospitals have endocrine divisions and training programs, but 85% of people receive care at small community hospitals.

“There are management guidelines, but they’re not always followed ... That’s why I’ve been advocating for endocrine hospitalists to be deployed nationally,” Dr. Zilbermint said. He is chief and director of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Johns Hopkins Community Physicians at Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland.

Asked to comment on behalf of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), Greg Maynard, MD, program lead for SHM’s Electronic Quality Improvement Programs, said that Suburban’s overall program goals align with those of the SHM.

“Dedicated inpatient glycemic control teams are very important and desirable to improve the quality and safety of care for inpatients with hyperglycemia and diabetes,” he said.

Regarding specific initiatives, such as those aimed at reducing hypoglycemia and insulin pen wastage, Dr. Maynard said, “All of these are feasible in a wide variety of institutions. The main barrier is getting the institutional support for people to work on these interventions. This series of studies can help spread the word about the positive return on investment.”

Another barrier – the current lack of publicly reported measures or pay-for-performance programs for hypoglycemia prevention and glycemic control – may soon change, added Dr. Maynard, who is also chief quality officer at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center.

“The National Quality Forum has endorsed new measures, and the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network is working on ways to augment those measures and embed them into their infrastructure,” he said.

Although SHM doesn’t specifically endorse full-time glycemic control hospitalists over endocrinology-trained glycemic control experts, “certainly hospitalists who accrue added training are very well positioned to be an important part of these interdisciplinary teams,” Dr. Maynard said.
 

‘The nurses were so afraid of hypoglycemia’

Tackling hypoglycemia was Dr. Zilbermint’s first priority when he started the glycemic management program at Suburban in late 2015.

“One of the most common complaints from the nurses was that a lot of their patients had hypoglycemia, especially in the ICU, when patients were placed on insulin infusion protocols ... Every time, the nurse would have to call the attending and ask what to do,” he explains.

In addition, Dr. Zilbermint says, there was no standard for treating hypoglycemia. A nurse in one unit would give two cups of juice, another a 50% dextrose infusion, or another, milk. Even more concerning, “the nurses were so afraid of hypoglycemia they would reflexively discontinue all insulin, including basal.”

So one of the new initiatives, led by Carter Shelton, MSHCM, an administrative fellow at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, was to implement a set of hospital-wide hypoglycemia prevention measures, as described in an article published online April 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.
 

Inpatient hypoglycemia rate was cut nearly in half

This began in 2016, when the multidisciplinary Suburban Hospital Glucose Steering Committee identified four main causes of insulin-induced hypoglycemia (defined as a blood glucose level of ≤70 mg/dL in a patient who had received at least one dose of insulin in the past 24 hours) and devised solutions for each:

1. Lack of a unified hypoglycemia protocol. A formal, evidence-based, nurse-driven treatment protocol with clinical decision support in the electronic medical record was developed. The Suburban team adapted much of the protocol from one that had been recently implemented at the flagship Johns Hopkins Hospital, in Baltimore, Maryland.

According to that protocol, if patients are able to swallow, they are given 15 g or 30 g of carbohydrates in order to achieve a blood glucose level of 50 to 70 mg/dL and <50 mg/dL, respectively. Levels are checked 15 minutes later. Intravenous D50 or glucagon is reserved for patients who can’t swallow.

2. For patients in critical care, the insulin infusion protocol that had been in use set blood glucose targets of 80 to 110 mg/dL, which resulted in hypoglycemia in nearly every patient who received an insulin infusion. This protocol was changed to the currently recommended 140 to 180 mg/dL.

3. Most patients were managed with sliding-scale insulin, an outdated yet still widely used regimen whereby insulin is given based only on current blood glucose without accounting for carbohydrates consumed with meals and not corrected until the subsequent meal. This was changed so that nurses give insulin after the patient has consumed at least 50% of their meal carbohydrates.

4. Lack of hypoglycemia reporting. A glucometrics dashboard – now used throughout the Johns Hopkins system – was adopted to produce daily hypoglycemia reports in the EMR system that could be reviewed by the inpatient glucose management service to track quality metrics and plan further interventions.

Between Jan. 1, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2019, out of a total 49,315 patient-days, there were 2,682 days on which any hypoglycemia occurred and 874 days on which moderate hypoglycemia occurred (≤54 mg/dL). Type 2 diabetes accounted for 84.4% of the total patient-days; type 1 accounted for 4.4%.

The overall frequency of any hypoglycemia patient-days per month decreased from 7.5% to 3.9% during the study period (P = .001). This was significant for the patients with type 2 diabetes (7.4% to 3.8%; P < .0001) but not for those with type 1 diabetes (18.5% to 18.0%; P = .08).

Rates of moderate hypoglycemia also decreased significantly among the patients with type 2 diabetes (1.9% to 1.0%; P = .03) but not for those with type 1 diabetes (7.4% to 6.0%; P = .14).

On the basis of these rates in reducing hypoglycemia, in which the inpatient hypoglycemia rate was cut nearly in half, the estimated savings in cost of care to the hospital was $98,635 during the period of January 2016 to September 2019.
 

Reducing insulin pen waste by minimizing duplicate prescriptions

Suburban Hospital had been using insulin vials and syringes when Dr. Zilbermint first arrived there. He lobbied the administration to allow use of pens, because they’re easier to use and they reduce the risk for needlestick injuries. Nurses were educated and retrained monthly in their use.

The switch to pens – aspart (Novolog Flexpen) for bolus insulin and glargine (Lantus SoloSTAR) – took place in 2018. The cost of the aspart pen was $16.19, and the cost of glargine was $25.08. Each holds 300 units of insulin.

After the first month, the team noticed a large increase in expenses. A quality improvement project was devised to address the issue.

“We were dispensing sometimes three or four pens per person. That’s a lot. Each pen holds 300 units, so one pen should last the entire hospital stay of an average 4- or 5-day stay,” Dr. Zilbermint explained. “We had to figure out where we were bleeding the money and where the pens were going.”

When pens disappeared, the pharmacy would have to dispense new ones. One problem was that when patients were transferred from one unit to another, the pen would be left behind and the room would be cleaned. Sometimes the pens weren’t stored properly or were misplaced. Often, they’d end up in a nurse’s pocket.

The second intervention was led by Urooj Najmi, MD, of the American International School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. A program was instituted to reduce duplicate inpatient insulin pen dispensing, as detailed in an article published in the same issue of the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

Solutions to reduce duplicate pen dispensing included having pharmacy track daily insulin pen reports and monitor duplicate orders, with “do not dispense” instructions conveyed via the EMR system. All multidose medications, including insulin pens, were to be placed in patients’ bins at the nursing station, and nurses were instructed to look for patients’ insulin pens prior to their being transferred to another unit, rather than ask for a replacement pen.

From July 2018 to July 2019, 3,121 patients received insulin, of whom 95% received aspart and 47% received glargine. Of the 9,516 pens dispensed, 68% were for aspart and 32% were for glargine. During the study period, the number of pens dispensed per patient dropped from 2.2 to 1.2 for aspart and from 2.1 to 1.3 for glargine; differences were highly significant (P = .0002 and P = .0005, respectively).

The total amount of unnecessary dispensing during the first 4 months after initiating the pen implementation program was 58%. The average monthly cost was $11,820.68; the projected cost per year was $141,848.

Six months after the waste reduction strategies were implemented, monthly waste had dropped to 42%, translating to an estimated potential cost savings of $66,261 over 12 months.

Because Suburban Hospital doesn’t have an outpatient dispensing license, there is still wastage when patients are discharged, because they can’t take their pens home with them. That remains a challenge, Dr. Zilbermint noted.

The team is working on implementing automatic A1c testing for patients admitted with hyperglycemia who either have a history of diabetes or whose blood glucose level is >140 mg/dL. Dr. Zilbermint said, “it’s in the guidelines, but it’s not always done.”

Dr. Zilbermint is a consultant for Guidepoint. Dr. Maynard, Mr. Shelton, and Dr. Najmi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initiatives targeting hypoglycemia and insulin pen wastage could lead to dramatic cost savings in small community hospitals, new data suggest.

The two projects are part of a dedicated inpatient glucose management service led by Mihail (“Misha”) Zilbermint, MD, one of the few full-time endocrine hospitalists in the United States and one of even fewer who work at a small community hospital.

In 2019, Dr. Zilbermint and colleagues reported that their inpatient glucose management program resulted in a 27% reduction in length of stay and a 10.7% lower 30-day readmission rate. The projected cost savings for the period January 2016 to May 2017 was $953,578.

Dr. Zilbermint’s team has written two new articles that document cost savings for specific elements of the program; namely, a set of hospital-wide hypoglycemia prevention measures, and an initiative that reduced duplicate inpatient insulin pen dispensing.

About 1 in 4 people in U.S. hospitals have diabetes or hyperglycemia. Large academic hospitals have endocrine divisions and training programs, but 85% of people receive care at small community hospitals.

“There are management guidelines, but they’re not always followed ... That’s why I’ve been advocating for endocrine hospitalists to be deployed nationally,” Dr. Zilbermint said. He is chief and director of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Johns Hopkins Community Physicians at Suburban Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland.

Asked to comment on behalf of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), Greg Maynard, MD, program lead for SHM’s Electronic Quality Improvement Programs, said that Suburban’s overall program goals align with those of the SHM.

“Dedicated inpatient glycemic control teams are very important and desirable to improve the quality and safety of care for inpatients with hyperglycemia and diabetes,” he said.

Regarding specific initiatives, such as those aimed at reducing hypoglycemia and insulin pen wastage, Dr. Maynard said, “All of these are feasible in a wide variety of institutions. The main barrier is getting the institutional support for people to work on these interventions. This series of studies can help spread the word about the positive return on investment.”

Another barrier – the current lack of publicly reported measures or pay-for-performance programs for hypoglycemia prevention and glycemic control – may soon change, added Dr. Maynard, who is also chief quality officer at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center.

“The National Quality Forum has endorsed new measures, and the CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network is working on ways to augment those measures and embed them into their infrastructure,” he said.

Although SHM doesn’t specifically endorse full-time glycemic control hospitalists over endocrinology-trained glycemic control experts, “certainly hospitalists who accrue added training are very well positioned to be an important part of these interdisciplinary teams,” Dr. Maynard said.
 

‘The nurses were so afraid of hypoglycemia’

Tackling hypoglycemia was Dr. Zilbermint’s first priority when he started the glycemic management program at Suburban in late 2015.

“One of the most common complaints from the nurses was that a lot of their patients had hypoglycemia, especially in the ICU, when patients were placed on insulin infusion protocols ... Every time, the nurse would have to call the attending and ask what to do,” he explains.

In addition, Dr. Zilbermint says, there was no standard for treating hypoglycemia. A nurse in one unit would give two cups of juice, another a 50% dextrose infusion, or another, milk. Even more concerning, “the nurses were so afraid of hypoglycemia they would reflexively discontinue all insulin, including basal.”

So one of the new initiatives, led by Carter Shelton, MSHCM, an administrative fellow at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, was to implement a set of hospital-wide hypoglycemia prevention measures, as described in an article published online April 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.
 

Inpatient hypoglycemia rate was cut nearly in half

This began in 2016, when the multidisciplinary Suburban Hospital Glucose Steering Committee identified four main causes of insulin-induced hypoglycemia (defined as a blood glucose level of ≤70 mg/dL in a patient who had received at least one dose of insulin in the past 24 hours) and devised solutions for each:

1. Lack of a unified hypoglycemia protocol. A formal, evidence-based, nurse-driven treatment protocol with clinical decision support in the electronic medical record was developed. The Suburban team adapted much of the protocol from one that had been recently implemented at the flagship Johns Hopkins Hospital, in Baltimore, Maryland.

According to that protocol, if patients are able to swallow, they are given 15 g or 30 g of carbohydrates in order to achieve a blood glucose level of 50 to 70 mg/dL and <50 mg/dL, respectively. Levels are checked 15 minutes later. Intravenous D50 or glucagon is reserved for patients who can’t swallow.

2. For patients in critical care, the insulin infusion protocol that had been in use set blood glucose targets of 80 to 110 mg/dL, which resulted in hypoglycemia in nearly every patient who received an insulin infusion. This protocol was changed to the currently recommended 140 to 180 mg/dL.

3. Most patients were managed with sliding-scale insulin, an outdated yet still widely used regimen whereby insulin is given based only on current blood glucose without accounting for carbohydrates consumed with meals and not corrected until the subsequent meal. This was changed so that nurses give insulin after the patient has consumed at least 50% of their meal carbohydrates.

4. Lack of hypoglycemia reporting. A glucometrics dashboard – now used throughout the Johns Hopkins system – was adopted to produce daily hypoglycemia reports in the EMR system that could be reviewed by the inpatient glucose management service to track quality metrics and plan further interventions.

Between Jan. 1, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2019, out of a total 49,315 patient-days, there were 2,682 days on which any hypoglycemia occurred and 874 days on which moderate hypoglycemia occurred (≤54 mg/dL). Type 2 diabetes accounted for 84.4% of the total patient-days; type 1 accounted for 4.4%.

The overall frequency of any hypoglycemia patient-days per month decreased from 7.5% to 3.9% during the study period (P = .001). This was significant for the patients with type 2 diabetes (7.4% to 3.8%; P < .0001) but not for those with type 1 diabetes (18.5% to 18.0%; P = .08).

Rates of moderate hypoglycemia also decreased significantly among the patients with type 2 diabetes (1.9% to 1.0%; P = .03) but not for those with type 1 diabetes (7.4% to 6.0%; P = .14).

On the basis of these rates in reducing hypoglycemia, in which the inpatient hypoglycemia rate was cut nearly in half, the estimated savings in cost of care to the hospital was $98,635 during the period of January 2016 to September 2019.
 

Reducing insulin pen waste by minimizing duplicate prescriptions

Suburban Hospital had been using insulin vials and syringes when Dr. Zilbermint first arrived there. He lobbied the administration to allow use of pens, because they’re easier to use and they reduce the risk for needlestick injuries. Nurses were educated and retrained monthly in their use.

The switch to pens – aspart (Novolog Flexpen) for bolus insulin and glargine (Lantus SoloSTAR) – took place in 2018. The cost of the aspart pen was $16.19, and the cost of glargine was $25.08. Each holds 300 units of insulin.

After the first month, the team noticed a large increase in expenses. A quality improvement project was devised to address the issue.

“We were dispensing sometimes three or four pens per person. That’s a lot. Each pen holds 300 units, so one pen should last the entire hospital stay of an average 4- or 5-day stay,” Dr. Zilbermint explained. “We had to figure out where we were bleeding the money and where the pens were going.”

When pens disappeared, the pharmacy would have to dispense new ones. One problem was that when patients were transferred from one unit to another, the pen would be left behind and the room would be cleaned. Sometimes the pens weren’t stored properly or were misplaced. Often, they’d end up in a nurse’s pocket.

The second intervention was led by Urooj Najmi, MD, of the American International School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. A program was instituted to reduce duplicate inpatient insulin pen dispensing, as detailed in an article published in the same issue of the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

Solutions to reduce duplicate pen dispensing included having pharmacy track daily insulin pen reports and monitor duplicate orders, with “do not dispense” instructions conveyed via the EMR system. All multidose medications, including insulin pens, were to be placed in patients’ bins at the nursing station, and nurses were instructed to look for patients’ insulin pens prior to their being transferred to another unit, rather than ask for a replacement pen.

From July 2018 to July 2019, 3,121 patients received insulin, of whom 95% received aspart and 47% received glargine. Of the 9,516 pens dispensed, 68% were for aspart and 32% were for glargine. During the study period, the number of pens dispensed per patient dropped from 2.2 to 1.2 for aspart and from 2.1 to 1.3 for glargine; differences were highly significant (P = .0002 and P = .0005, respectively).

The total amount of unnecessary dispensing during the first 4 months after initiating the pen implementation program was 58%. The average monthly cost was $11,820.68; the projected cost per year was $141,848.

Six months after the waste reduction strategies were implemented, monthly waste had dropped to 42%, translating to an estimated potential cost savings of $66,261 over 12 months.

Because Suburban Hospital doesn’t have an outpatient dispensing license, there is still wastage when patients are discharged, because they can’t take their pens home with them. That remains a challenge, Dr. Zilbermint noted.

The team is working on implementing automatic A1c testing for patients admitted with hyperglycemia who either have a history of diabetes or whose blood glucose level is >140 mg/dL. Dr. Zilbermint said, “it’s in the guidelines, but it’s not always done.”

Dr. Zilbermint is a consultant for Guidepoint. Dr. Maynard, Mr. Shelton, and Dr. Najmi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

In 2017-2018, only one in three U.S. adults with diabetes received five basic elements of care recommended by the American Diabetes Association, new research indicates.

BakiBG

The proportions of patients who visited a physician for diabetes care and received hemoglobin A1c testing, foot and eye exams, and cholesterol testing increased from 2005 to 2018. However, this increase was primarily among those aged 65 years and older, and therefore eligible for Medicare.

“Our study suggests that providing affordable health care coverage can help ensure people with diabetes get recommended care. We also found that patients who were not receiving recommended care were more likely to be younger, newly diagnosed with diabetes, and not on diabetes medication. Clinicians can pay more attention to these patient populations to improve recommended care delivery and prevent diabetes-related complications,” lead author Jung-Im Shin, MD, said in an interview.

The data predate the COVID-19 pandemic, which has also had major effects on delivery of diabetes care, added Dr. Shin of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“Routine visits to the doctor and important screenings for retinopathy or foot examination have been postponed. People with diabetes have had to reschedule or cancel nonurgent visits, some have lost ... insurance following unemployment, and many have avoided health care facilities out of fear. We are only just beginning to understand the consequences of the pandemic on the health of people with diabetes,” Dr. Shin noted.
 

Overall improvements seen only in those aged 65 and older

The data, from 4,069 adults aged 20 years and older from the 2005-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES), were published online April 16, 2021, in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Shin and colleagues defined receipt of diabetes care as meeting all of the following five criteria in the past 12 months, based on the ADA Standards of Care and NHANES data availability: seeing a primary doctor for diabetes care, receiving A1c testing, receiving a foot examination, receiving an eye examination, and receiving cholesterol testing.

Over the entire 13-year period, 29.2% of respondents reported having received all five components.

That proportion increased significantly over time, from 25.0% in 2005-2006 to 34.1% in 2017-2018 (P = .004). However, among the individual components, only receiving A1c testing increased significantly over time, from 64.4% to 85.3%, in all age groups (P < .001).

Moreover, when stratified by age, receipt of all five components only increased significantly among participants aged 65 and older, from 29.3% in 2005-2006 to 44.2% in 2017-2018 (P = .001).

The proportion remained unchanged among those aged 40-64 (25.2% to 25.8%; P =  .457) and showed a nonsignificant increase in those aged 20-39 (9.9% to 26.0%; P = .401).

In adjusted analyses, older age, higher income and education, health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, use of diabetes medications, and hypercholesterolemia were significantly associated with receipt of ADA guideline–recommended diabetes care.

Factors not found to be associated with care receipt included sex, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, A1c, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and depressive symptoms.

Participants who received ADA guideline–recommended care were significantly more likely to achieve A1c below 7.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.52), blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg (aOR, 1.47), and LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL (aOR, 1.47), and to receive cholesterol-lowering medication (aOR, 1.79).

Dr. Shin said that it will be “important to study the impact of COVID-19 on diabetes care when new data are available.”

The project was supported by a research grant from Merck to Johns Hopkins University. Shin has reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Two coauthors are Merck employees.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

The majority of children with type 1 diabetes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were cared for at home and did well, according to the first report of outcomes of pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 from the United States.

Most children who were hospitalized had diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and high hemoglobin A1c levels, the new report from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative indicates. Fewer than 2% required respiratory support, and no deaths were recorded.

The greatest risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes was among children with A1c levels >9%. In addition, children of certain ethnic minority groups and those with public health insurance were more likely to be hospitalized.

The study, conducted by G. Todd Alonso, MD, of the University of Colorado, Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, and colleagues, was published online April 14 in the Journal of Diabetes..

“As early reports identified diabetes as a risk factor for increased morbidity and mortality with COVID-19, the findings from this surveillance study should provide measured reassurance for families of children with type 1 diabetes as well as pediatric endocrinologists and their care teams,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.
 

Disproportionate rate of hospitalization, DKA among Black patients

Initiated in April 2020, the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative comprises 56 diabetes centers, of which 52 submitted a total of 266 cases involving patients younger than 19 years who had type 1 diabetes and who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Those with new-onset type 1 diabetes were excluded from this analysis and were reported separately. The data were collected between April 9, 2020, and Jan. 15, 2021.

Of the 266 patients, 23% (61) were hospitalized, and 205 were not. There were no differences by age, gender, or diabetes duration.

However, those hospitalized were more likely to be Black (34% vs. 13% among White patients; P < .001) and to have public health insurance (64% vs. 41%; P < .001). They also had higher A1c levels than patients who were not hospitalized (11% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), and fewer used insulin pumps (26% vs. 54%; P < .001) and continuous glucose monitors (39% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Those hospitalized were also more likely to have hyperglycemia (48% vs. 28%; P = .007), nausea (33% vs. 6%; P < .001), and vomiting (49% vs. 3%; P < .001). Rates of dry cough, excess fatigue, and body aches/headaches did not differ between those hospitalized and those who remained at home.

The most common adverse outcome was DKA, which occurred in 72% (44) of those hospitalized.

The most recent A1c level was less than 9% in 82% of those hospitalized vs. 31% of those who weren’t (P < .001) and in 38 of the 44 (86%) who had DKA.

“Our data reveal a disproportionate rate of hospitalization and DKA among racial and ethnic minority groups, children who were publicly insured, and those with higher A1c. It is essential to find pathways for the most vulnerable patients to have adequate, equitable access to medical care via in person and telehealth services, to obtain and successfully use diabetes technology, and to optimize sick day management,” say Dr. Alonso and colleagues.

One child, a 15-year-old White boy, underwent intubation and was placed on a ventilator. His most recent A1c was 8.9%. Another child, a 13-year-old boy whose most recent A1c level was 11.1%, developed multisystem inflammatory syndrome of childhood.

The registry remains open.

The T1D Exchange QI Collaborative is funded by the Helmsley Charitable Trust. The T1D Exchange received partial financial support for this study from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Medtronic, Insulet Corporation, JDRF, Eli Lilly, and Tandem Diabetes Care. None of the sponsors were involved in initiating, designing, or preparing the manuscript for this study.

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

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

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

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

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

Two new phase 2 studies show encouraging findings with the investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue icodec (Novo Nordisk) for people with type 2 diabetes who require insulin.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Insulin icodec works by reversibly binding to albumin, which slows the release of the active insulin analogue. It has a half-life of about 1 week. The glucose-lowering effect is distributed nearly evenly over the course of that week.

Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who is an author of both new articles, said: “A weekly insulin is a game changer that will decrease the treatment burden for patients while also improving compliance.”

She noted that these studies demonstrate optimal approaches to initiating treatment with icodec and serve “as the steppingstones for a large phase 3 clinical trial program that is currently ongoing ... which is designed to evaluate the efficacy of once-weekly insulin administration in patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes.”

Another advantage of the formulation, Dr. Lingvay pointed out in a press release from her institution, is that it could decrease the burden on caregivers of patients with diabetes who require insulin.

“For example, for patients who need help injecting, those living in long-term care facilities, and those with memory problems, a once-weekly insulin will facilitate treatment and decrease the burden on the care providers,” she explained.
 

Titration balances glycemic control with hypoglycemic risk reduction

The first phase 2 trial, published online April 19, 2021, in Diabetes Care, was an open-label, 16-week, treat-to-target study that involved 205 insulin-naive adults with type 2 diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c levels were 7%-10% while using oral glucose-lowering medications.

They were randomly assigned to one of three once-weekly icodec titration groups:

• Group A – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments ±21 units/wk
• Group B – Fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with ±28 units/wk
• Group C – Fasting glucose target of 70-108 mg/dL, adjusting by ±28 units/wk or to once-daily glargine U100 with a fasting glucose target of 80-130 mg/dL with adjustments of ±4 units/d

The percentage of time in the ideal glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring during weeks 15-16, improved from baseline levels of 57.0%, 55.2%, 51.0% for groups A, B, and C, respectively, and from 55.3% for glargine to 76.6%, 83.0%, 80.9%, and 75.9%, respectively.

There were no unexpected safety problems. Hypoglycemia episodes of glucose levels <54 mg/dL occurred in 0.05, 0.15, 0.38, and 0.00 per patient-year for the four groups, respectively. None were severe (i.e., required assistance).

The titration for patients in group A (80-130 mg/dL, ±21 units/wk) yielded the best balance between glycemic control and risk for hypoglycemia, Dr. Lingvay and colleagues said.
 

Use of loading dose when switching to icodec improves time in range

In the other phase 2 trial, also published online April 19 in Diabetes Care, Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, and colleagues, with Dr. Lingvay as a coauthor, examined two methods of switching to icodec. This multicenter, open-label, treat-to-target study included 154 patients with A1c levels of 7-10% who were already receiving basal insulin daily and at least one oral glucose-lowering medication.

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment approaches: a 100% loading dose of icodec (only the first dose was doubled), no loading dose, or once-daily glargine.

The primary endpoint was time in range (70-180 mg/dL) during weeks 15 and 16. This was achieved with 72.9% of patients receiving the icodec loading dose, 66.0% of patients receiving icodec without the loading dose, and 65.0% of patients receiving daily glargine. The difference between the icodec loading-dose method and glargine was significant, Dr. Bajaj and colleagues reported.

The mean A1c level was reduced from an overall average of 7.9% at baseline to 7.1% in the icodec loading dose group and to 7.4% in both the no-loading-dose and glargine groups.

Rates of adverse events and hypoglycemic episodes did not differ significantly among the groups.

Previous phase 2 data showing that the efficacy and safety of icodec were comparable with that of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes were published in November 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine and were presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2020 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.

Both studies were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lingvey has received research funding, advisory/consulting fees, or other support from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Intercept, Intarcia, Target RWE, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, GI Dynamics, Mylan, Mannkind, Valeritas, Bayer, and Zealand Pharma. Dr. Bajaj has received speaking fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Novo Nordisk and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare for serving as principal investigator on clinical trials from Amgen, AstraZeneca Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Tricida.

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

Excess mortality among people with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) has declined in the past 20 years yet remains three times higher than in the general population, new research finds.

Among more than 90,000 individuals with endogenous CS, the overall proportion of mortality – defined as the ratio of the number of deaths from CS divided by the total number of CS patients – was 0.05, and the standardized mortality rate was an “unacceptable” three times that of the general population, Padiporn Limumpornpetch, MD, reported on March 20 at ENDO 2021: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

Excess deaths were higher among those with adrenal CS, compared with those with Cushing’s disease. The most common causes of death among those with CS were cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular accident, infection, and malignancy, noted Dr. Limumpornpetch, of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand, who is also a PhD student at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

“While mortality has improved since 2000, it is still significantly compromised compared to the background population ... The causes of death highlight the need for aggressive management of cardiovascular risk, prevention of thromboembolism, infection control, and a normalized cortisol level,” she said.

Asked to comment, Maria Fleseriu, MD, told this news organization that the new data show “we are making improvements in the care of patients with CS and thus outcomes, but we are not there yet ... This meta-analysis highlights the whole spectrum of acute and life-threatening complications in CS and their high prevalence, even before disease diagnosis and after successful surgery.”

She noted that although she wasn’t surprised by the overall results, “the improvement over time was indeed lower than I expected. However, interestingly here, the risk of mortality in adrenal Cushing’s was unexpectedly high despite patients with adrenal cancer being excluded.”

Dr. Fleseriu, who is director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, advised, “Management of hyperglycemia and diabetes, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, and other cardiovascular risk factors is generally undertaken in accordance with standard of clinical care.”

“But we should focus more on optimizing more aggressively this care in addition to the specific Cushing’s treatment,” she stressed.

In addition, she noted, “Medical therapy for CS may be needed even prior to surgery in severe and/or prolonged hypercortisolism to decrease complications ... We definitely need a multidisciplinary approach to address complications and etiologic treatment as well as the reduced long-term quality of life in patients with CS.”

Largest study in scale and scope of Cushing’s syndrome mortality

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome occurs when the body overproduces cortisol. The most common cause of the latter is a tumor of the pituitary gland (Cushing’s disease), but another cause is a usually benign tumor of the adrenal glands (adrenal Cushing’s syndrome). Surgery is the mainstay of initial treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. If an operation to remove the tumor fails to cause remission, medications are available.

Prior to this new meta-analysis, there had been limited data on mortality among patients with endogenous CS. Research has mostly been limited to single-cohort studies. A previous systematic review/meta-analysis comprised only seven articles with 780 patients. All the studies were conducted prior to 2012, and most were limited to Cushing’s disease.

“In 2021, we lacked a detailed understanding of patient outcomes and mortality because of the rarity of Cushing’s syndrome,” Dr. Limumpornpetch noted.

The current meta-analysis included 91 articles that reported mortality among patients with endogenous CS. There was a total of 19,181 patients from 92 study cohorts, including 49 studies on CD (n = 14,971), 24 studies on adrenal CS (n = 2304), and 19 studies that included both (n = 1906).

Among 21 studies that reported standardized mortality rate (SMR) data, including 13 CD studies (n = 2160) and seven on adrenal CS (n = 1531), the overall increase in mortality compared to the background population was a significant 3.00 (range, 1.15-7.84).

This SMR was higher among patients with adrenal Cushing’s syndrome (3.3) versus Cushing’s disease (2.8) (P = .003) and among patients who had active disease (5.7) versus those whose disease was in remission (2.3) (P < .001).

The SMR was also worse among patients with Cushing’s disease with larger tumors (macroadenomas), at 7.4, than among patients with very small tumors (microadenomas), at 1.9 (P = .004).

The proportion of death was 0.05 for CS overall, with 0.04 for CD and 0.02 for adrenal adenomas.

Compared to studies published prior to the year 2000, more recent studies seem to reflect advances in treatment and care. The overall proportion of death for all CS cohorts dropped from 0.10 to 0.03 (P < .001); for all CD cohorts, it dropped from 0.14 to 0.03; and for adrenal CS cohorts, it dropped from 0.09 to 0.03 (P = .04).

Causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (29.5% of cases), cerebrovascular accident (11.5%), infection (10.5%), and malignancy (10.1%). Less common causes of death were gastrointestinal bleeding and acute pancreatitis (3.7%), active CS (3.5%), adrenal insufficiency (2.5%), suicide (2.5%), and surgery (1.6%).

Overall, in the CS groups, the proportion of deaths within 30 days of surgery dropped from 0.04 prior to 2000 to 0.01 since (P = .07). For CD, the proportion dropped from 0.02 to 0.01 (P = .25).

Preventing perioperative mortality: Consider thromboprophylaxis

Dr. Fleseriu told this news organization that she believes hypercoagulability is “the least recognized complication with a big role in mortality.” Because most of the perioperative mortality is due to venous thromboembolism and infections, “thromboprophylaxis should be considered for CS patients with severe hypercortisolism and/or postoperatively, based on individual risk factors of thromboembolism and bleeding.”

Recently, Dr. Fleseriu’s group showed in a single retrospective study that the risk for arterial and venous thromboembolic events among patients with CS was approximately 20%. Many patients experienced more than one event. Risk was higher 30 to 60 days postoperatively.

The odds ratio of venous thromoboembolism among patients with CS was 18 times higher than in the normal population.

“Due to the additional thrombotic risk of surgery or any invasive procedure, anticoagulation prophylaxis should be at least considered in all patients with Cushing’s syndrome and balanced with individual bleeding risk,” Dr. Fleseriu advised.

A recent Pituitary Society workshop discussed the management of complications of CS at length; proceedings will be published soon, she noted.

Dr. Limumpornpetch commented, “We look forward to the day when our interdisciplinary approach to managing these challenging patients can deliver outcomes similar to the background population.”

Dr. Limumpornpetch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fleseriu has been a scientific consultant to Recordati, Sparrow, and Strongbridge and has received grants (inst) from Novartis and Strongbridge.

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

Excess mortality among people with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) has declined in the past 20 years yet remains three times higher than in the general population, new research finds.

Among more than 90,000 individuals with endogenous CS, the overall proportion of mortality – defined as the ratio of the number of deaths from CS divided by the total number of CS patients – was 0.05, and the standardized mortality rate was an “unacceptable” three times that of the general population, Padiporn Limumpornpetch, MD, reported on March 20 at ENDO 2021: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

Excess deaths were higher among those with adrenal CS, compared with those with Cushing’s disease. The most common causes of death among those with CS were cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular accident, infection, and malignancy, noted Dr. Limumpornpetch, of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand, who is also a PhD student at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

“While mortality has improved since 2000, it is still significantly compromised compared to the background population ... The causes of death highlight the need for aggressive management of cardiovascular risk, prevention of thromboembolism, infection control, and a normalized cortisol level,” she said.

Asked to comment, Maria Fleseriu, MD, told this news organization that the new data show “we are making improvements in the care of patients with CS and thus outcomes, but we are not there yet ... This meta-analysis highlights the whole spectrum of acute and life-threatening complications in CS and their high prevalence, even before disease diagnosis and after successful surgery.”

She noted that although she wasn’t surprised by the overall results, “the improvement over time was indeed lower than I expected. However, interestingly here, the risk of mortality in adrenal Cushing’s was unexpectedly high despite patients with adrenal cancer being excluded.”

Dr. Fleseriu, who is director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, advised, “Management of hyperglycemia and diabetes, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, and other cardiovascular risk factors is generally undertaken in accordance with standard of clinical care.”

“But we should focus more on optimizing more aggressively this care in addition to the specific Cushing’s treatment,” she stressed.

In addition, she noted, “Medical therapy for CS may be needed even prior to surgery in severe and/or prolonged hypercortisolism to decrease complications ... We definitely need a multidisciplinary approach to address complications and etiologic treatment as well as the reduced long-term quality of life in patients with CS.”

Largest study in scale and scope of Cushing’s syndrome mortality

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome occurs when the body overproduces cortisol. The most common cause of the latter is a tumor of the pituitary gland (Cushing’s disease), but another cause is a usually benign tumor of the adrenal glands (adrenal Cushing’s syndrome). Surgery is the mainstay of initial treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. If an operation to remove the tumor fails to cause remission, medications are available.

Prior to this new meta-analysis, there had been limited data on mortality among patients with endogenous CS. Research has mostly been limited to single-cohort studies. A previous systematic review/meta-analysis comprised only seven articles with 780 patients. All the studies were conducted prior to 2012, and most were limited to Cushing’s disease.

“In 2021, we lacked a detailed understanding of patient outcomes and mortality because of the rarity of Cushing’s syndrome,” Dr. Limumpornpetch noted.

The current meta-analysis included 91 articles that reported mortality among patients with endogenous CS. There was a total of 19,181 patients from 92 study cohorts, including 49 studies on CD (n = 14,971), 24 studies on adrenal CS (n = 2304), and 19 studies that included both (n = 1906).

Among 21 studies that reported standardized mortality rate (SMR) data, including 13 CD studies (n = 2160) and seven on adrenal CS (n = 1531), the overall increase in mortality compared to the background population was a significant 3.00 (range, 1.15-7.84).

This SMR was higher among patients with adrenal Cushing’s syndrome (3.3) versus Cushing’s disease (2.8) (P = .003) and among patients who had active disease (5.7) versus those whose disease was in remission (2.3) (P < .001).

The SMR was also worse among patients with Cushing’s disease with larger tumors (macroadenomas), at 7.4, than among patients with very small tumors (microadenomas), at 1.9 (P = .004).

The proportion of death was 0.05 for CS overall, with 0.04 for CD and 0.02 for adrenal adenomas.

Compared to studies published prior to the year 2000, more recent studies seem to reflect advances in treatment and care. The overall proportion of death for all CS cohorts dropped from 0.10 to 0.03 (P < .001); for all CD cohorts, it dropped from 0.14 to 0.03; and for adrenal CS cohorts, it dropped from 0.09 to 0.03 (P = .04).

Causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (29.5% of cases), cerebrovascular accident (11.5%), infection (10.5%), and malignancy (10.1%). Less common causes of death were gastrointestinal bleeding and acute pancreatitis (3.7%), active CS (3.5%), adrenal insufficiency (2.5%), suicide (2.5%), and surgery (1.6%).

Overall, in the CS groups, the proportion of deaths within 30 days of surgery dropped from 0.04 prior to 2000 to 0.01 since (P = .07). For CD, the proportion dropped from 0.02 to 0.01 (P = .25).

Preventing perioperative mortality: Consider thromboprophylaxis

Dr. Fleseriu told this news organization that she believes hypercoagulability is “the least recognized complication with a big role in mortality.” Because most of the perioperative mortality is due to venous thromboembolism and infections, “thromboprophylaxis should be considered for CS patients with severe hypercortisolism and/or postoperatively, based on individual risk factors of thromboembolism and bleeding.”

Recently, Dr. Fleseriu’s group showed in a single retrospective study that the risk for arterial and venous thromboembolic events among patients with CS was approximately 20%. Many patients experienced more than one event. Risk was higher 30 to 60 days postoperatively.

The odds ratio of venous thromoboembolism among patients with CS was 18 times higher than in the normal population.

“Due to the additional thrombotic risk of surgery or any invasive procedure, anticoagulation prophylaxis should be at least considered in all patients with Cushing’s syndrome and balanced with individual bleeding risk,” Dr. Fleseriu advised.

A recent Pituitary Society workshop discussed the management of complications of CS at length; proceedings will be published soon, she noted.

Dr. Limumpornpetch commented, “We look forward to the day when our interdisciplinary approach to managing these challenging patients can deliver outcomes similar to the background population.”

Dr. Limumpornpetch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fleseriu has been a scientific consultant to Recordati, Sparrow, and Strongbridge and has received grants (inst) from Novartis and Strongbridge.

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

Excess mortality among people with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) has declined in the past 20 years yet remains three times higher than in the general population, new research finds.

Among more than 90,000 individuals with endogenous CS, the overall proportion of mortality – defined as the ratio of the number of deaths from CS divided by the total number of CS patients – was 0.05, and the standardized mortality rate was an “unacceptable” three times that of the general population, Padiporn Limumpornpetch, MD, reported on March 20 at ENDO 2021: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

Excess deaths were higher among those with adrenal CS, compared with those with Cushing’s disease. The most common causes of death among those with CS were cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular accident, infection, and malignancy, noted Dr. Limumpornpetch, of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Thailand, who is also a PhD student at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom.

“While mortality has improved since 2000, it is still significantly compromised compared to the background population ... The causes of death highlight the need for aggressive management of cardiovascular risk, prevention of thromboembolism, infection control, and a normalized cortisol level,” she said.

Asked to comment, Maria Fleseriu, MD, told this news organization that the new data show “we are making improvements in the care of patients with CS and thus outcomes, but we are not there yet ... This meta-analysis highlights the whole spectrum of acute and life-threatening complications in CS and their high prevalence, even before disease diagnosis and after successful surgery.”

She noted that although she wasn’t surprised by the overall results, “the improvement over time was indeed lower than I expected. However, interestingly here, the risk of mortality in adrenal Cushing’s was unexpectedly high despite patients with adrenal cancer being excluded.”

Dr. Fleseriu, who is director of the Pituitary Center at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, advised, “Management of hyperglycemia and diabetes, hypertension, hypokalemia, hyperlipidemia, and other cardiovascular risk factors is generally undertaken in accordance with standard of clinical care.”

“But we should focus more on optimizing more aggressively this care in addition to the specific Cushing’s treatment,” she stressed.

In addition, she noted, “Medical therapy for CS may be needed even prior to surgery in severe and/or prolonged hypercortisolism to decrease complications ... We definitely need a multidisciplinary approach to address complications and etiologic treatment as well as the reduced long-term quality of life in patients with CS.”

Largest study in scale and scope of Cushing’s syndrome mortality

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome occurs when the body overproduces cortisol. The most common cause of the latter is a tumor of the pituitary gland (Cushing’s disease), but another cause is a usually benign tumor of the adrenal glands (adrenal Cushing’s syndrome). Surgery is the mainstay of initial treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. If an operation to remove the tumor fails to cause remission, medications are available.

Prior to this new meta-analysis, there had been limited data on mortality among patients with endogenous CS. Research has mostly been limited to single-cohort studies. A previous systematic review/meta-analysis comprised only seven articles with 780 patients. All the studies were conducted prior to 2012, and most were limited to Cushing’s disease.

“In 2021, we lacked a detailed understanding of patient outcomes and mortality because of the rarity of Cushing’s syndrome,” Dr. Limumpornpetch noted.

The current meta-analysis included 91 articles that reported mortality among patients with endogenous CS. There was a total of 19,181 patients from 92 study cohorts, including 49 studies on CD (n = 14,971), 24 studies on adrenal CS (n = 2304), and 19 studies that included both (n = 1906).

Among 21 studies that reported standardized mortality rate (SMR) data, including 13 CD studies (n = 2160) and seven on adrenal CS (n = 1531), the overall increase in mortality compared to the background population was a significant 3.00 (range, 1.15-7.84).

This SMR was higher among patients with adrenal Cushing’s syndrome (3.3) versus Cushing’s disease (2.8) (P = .003) and among patients who had active disease (5.7) versus those whose disease was in remission (2.3) (P < .001).

The SMR was also worse among patients with Cushing’s disease with larger tumors (macroadenomas), at 7.4, than among patients with very small tumors (microadenomas), at 1.9 (P = .004).

The proportion of death was 0.05 for CS overall, with 0.04 for CD and 0.02 for adrenal adenomas.

Compared to studies published prior to the year 2000, more recent studies seem to reflect advances in treatment and care. The overall proportion of death for all CS cohorts dropped from 0.10 to 0.03 (P < .001); for all CD cohorts, it dropped from 0.14 to 0.03; and for adrenal CS cohorts, it dropped from 0.09 to 0.03 (P = .04).

Causes of death were cardiovascular diseases (29.5% of cases), cerebrovascular accident (11.5%), infection (10.5%), and malignancy (10.1%). Less common causes of death were gastrointestinal bleeding and acute pancreatitis (3.7%), active CS (3.5%), adrenal insufficiency (2.5%), suicide (2.5%), and surgery (1.6%).

Overall, in the CS groups, the proportion of deaths within 30 days of surgery dropped from 0.04 prior to 2000 to 0.01 since (P = .07). For CD, the proportion dropped from 0.02 to 0.01 (P = .25).

Preventing perioperative mortality: Consider thromboprophylaxis

Dr. Fleseriu told this news organization that she believes hypercoagulability is “the least recognized complication with a big role in mortality.” Because most of the perioperative mortality is due to venous thromboembolism and infections, “thromboprophylaxis should be considered for CS patients with severe hypercortisolism and/or postoperatively, based on individual risk factors of thromboembolism and bleeding.”

Recently, Dr. Fleseriu’s group showed in a single retrospective study that the risk for arterial and venous thromboembolic events among patients with CS was approximately 20%. Many patients experienced more than one event. Risk was higher 30 to 60 days postoperatively.

The odds ratio of venous thromoboembolism among patients with CS was 18 times higher than in the normal population.

“Due to the additional thrombotic risk of surgery or any invasive procedure, anticoagulation prophylaxis should be at least considered in all patients with Cushing’s syndrome and balanced with individual bleeding risk,” Dr. Fleseriu advised.

A recent Pituitary Society workshop discussed the management of complications of CS at length; proceedings will be published soon, she noted.

Dr. Limumpornpetch commented, “We look forward to the day when our interdisciplinary approach to managing these challenging patients can deliver outcomes similar to the background population.”

Dr. Limumpornpetch has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fleseriu has been a scientific consultant to Recordati, Sparrow, and Strongbridge and has received grants (inst) from Novartis and Strongbridge.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has endorsed a pancreatic islet cell transplant therapy for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes that can’t be managed with current therapies.

On April 15, the FDA’s Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee voted 12 to 4 in favor of approval of donislecel (Lantidra). There was one abstention. The panel regarded the drug as having “an overall favorable benefit-risk profile for some patients with type 1 diabetes.” The product consists of purified allogeneic pancreatic islets of Langerhans derived from cadaveric donors and is infused into the portal vein of the liver.

Benefits of the treatment include the potential for insulin independence and elimination of severe hypoglycemia. Risks are those associated with the surgical procedure and with long-term immunosuppression.

The therapy is manufactured by CellTrans. According to Jose Oberholzer, MD, the founder of CellTrans, the proposed indication is for adults with “brittle” type 1 diabetes who meet the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) criteria for whole-organ pancreas-alone transplant (i.e., transplant of pancreas but not kidney).

The ADA criteria include the following: frequent, severe hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and/or ketoacidosis that requires medical attention; clinical or emotional problems regarding the use of exogenous insulin; and consistent failure of insulin-based management to prevent acute diabetes complications.
 

Success in two-thirds of patients in small studies

Dr. Oberholzer presented data from two single-arm open-label studies: a phase 1/2 trial initiated in 2004 with 10 patients, and a phase 3 study with 20 patients that began in 2007. The inclusion criteria differed somewhat between the two studies, but all 30 patients had hypoglycemic unawareness. Mean follow-up was 7.8 years for the phase 1/2 trial and 4.7 years for the phase 3 trial.

For all of the patients, C-peptide levels were positive after transplant. The composite endpoint for success – an A1c level of ≤ 6.5% and the absence of severe hypoglycemic episodes for 1 year – was met by 19 patients (63.3%). For five patients (16.7%), the target A1c level was not achieved, and seven patients (23.3%) experienced a severe episode of hypoglycemia.

Twenty of the 30 patients achieved insulin independence for at least 1 year.

Improvements were also seen at 1 year in mixed meal test outcomes, fasting blood glucose levels, and overall glycemic control. Graft survival 10 years post transplant was achieved by 60% of patients, Dr. Oberholzer said.
 

Adverse events not unexpected, but still of concern

Two patients died, one as a result of fulminant sepsis at 20 months post transplant, and the other as a result of severe dementia 9 years post transplant. Three patients experienced four serious procedure-related events, including one liver laceration and two hepatic hematomas. Elevations in portal pressure occurred in two patients.

Most adverse events were associated with immunosuppression. These included 178 infections in 26 of the 30 patients. The most common of these were herpes virus infections, Epstein-Barr virus infections, oral candidiasis, and cytomegalovirus infections. Twelve infections were severe. Renal function declined persistently in two patients (20%), and six (20%) experienced new-onset proteinuria at 1 year.

The adverse events related to the procedure and the problems associated with immunosuppression were not unexpected and were consistent with those described for patients receiving whole pancreas transplants, FDA reviewer Patricia Beaston, MD, said in her review of the CellTrans data.
 

Panel members support treatment for a small group of patients

During the discussion, several panel members pointed out that the target patient population for this treatment will likely be smaller today than it was when the two studies were initiated, given advances in diabetes care. Those advances include continuous glucose monitoring devices with alarms and closed-loop insulin delivery systems – the “artificial pancreas” that automatically suspends insulin delivery to prevent hypoglycemia.

Panel chair Lisa Butterfield, PhD, a surgeon and immunologist at the University of California, San Francisco, voted in favor of approval. But, she added, “I do support postapproval gathering of data to learn more about the product. ... I don’t know how many patients will really benefit, but I think it’s to be determined.”

Christopher K. Breuer, MD, a general and pediatric surgeon at the Center for Regenerative Medicine, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, said he supported approval for “two very small subpopulations where it would provide the only viable therapy”: those who are eligible for pancreas transplant but cannot tolerate a major operation, and those who already use the latest automated insulin delivery systems and still do not achieve acceptable glycemic control.

Temporary voting member David Harlan, MD, director of the University of Massachusetts Diabetes Center of Excellence, Worcester, Mass., voted no.

He noted that only about 100 whole pancreas-only transplants are performed annually in the United States and that such transplants are “very effective, so we’re talking about patients who aren’t pancreas transplant candidates who might get this.”

Moreover, Dr. Harlan said, “I’ve seen the awful things that can happen in posttransplant recipients. It’s really hard to get that informed consent from someone when you’re asking them to consider a future that they don’t know. When it works, it’s great. When it doesn’t work, it can be catastrophic. I just worry about opening Pandora’s box.”

The only other diabetes specialist on the panel, temporary voting member Ellen Leschek, MD, said she “reluctantly voted yes because a few people could benefit, but I think it’s a much smaller number than the company may believe.”

Dr. Leschek, of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Md., said she’s concerned that “if it’s approved, too many people will get treated this way, when in fact, for a lot of those people, the risks will outweigh the benefits.”

Sandy Feng, MD, PhD, of the department of surgery at the University of California, San Francisco, pointed out that with regard to immunosuppressive therapy, “We’re concerned about the toxicity of what we currently use, but there are additional therapies being developed that might mitigate those toxicities that would be beneficial to this population.”

Dr. Feng, who voted yes, also said, “I do pancreas transplants. I can tell you that there is nothing that [patients with type 1 diabetes] like more than the freedom from dealing with the entire insulin issue. That has made a large impression on me over the last 20-plus years of clinical practice, so I do think this can help some people and will be incredibly meaningful to those people.”

FDA advisory panel members are vetted for conflicts of interest, and special waivers are granted if necessary. No such waivers were granted for this meeting.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Incorporation of a nonintensive fitness intervention for women with obesity into a standard fertility treatment program could be cost effective, a new analysis finds.

Financial data for the Canadian Fit-for-Fertility program were presented March 20 at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society by Matea Belan, PhD, of the division of endocrinology at the University of Sherbrooke (Que.).

Women with obesity and infertility are typically advised to lose 5%-10% of their body weight as first-line fertility treatment, as doing so has been shown to increase rates of ovulation and pregnancy. But most established fertility treatment programs don’t incorporate organized lifestyle modification interventions, Dr. Belan explained during a press briefing.

“Mostly they’re just given general advice, not resources. It’s up to the woman to seek help for lifestyle. Our idea is to give them access to intervention that’s integrated into the setting of a fertility clinic,” she said.

Primary results from the Fit-for-Fertility program, including significant weight loss and a 40% increased live birth rate at 18 months, compared with standard fertility treatment, were presented at ENDO 2019 and reported at the time by this news organization.

In the new analysis, the cost in Canadian dollars per additional newborn achieved with the Fit-for-Fertility program was similar to the willingness-to-pay for in vitro fertilization from a health system perspective.

The final goal, lead investigator Jean-Patrice Baillargeon, MD, said in an interview, “would be to convince stakeholders, and mainly the provincial government, to cover the costs of our lifestyle program. This would not be more costly than funding IVF, but [would provide] more long-term benefits for the whole family and the offspring.”

Chloe A. Zera, MD, said in an interview that she supports the idea in principle, but is concerned that, in the U.S. health care system, women don’t always have access to fertility and obesity treatments to begin with.

“There’s a huge equity issue. People with Medicaid don’t necessarily get coverage for IVF. ... Even many commercially insured people are paying out of pocket, which can be $10,000 to $15,000 for a cycle just for the medications, so the cost to patients on the individual level is huge,” said Dr. Zera, who is associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

She added: “I’m prolifestyle modification. I’m also proequity in health care delivery so I would want to make sure that the way it’s delivered incorporates that as a consideration. ... Is that money better spent on primary prevention of obesity and access to basic services and basic reproductive health care for everybody?”
 

Primary results: Improvements in overall and spontaneous pregnancy rates

The study included 130 women with infertility and a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m2 (mean, 40), of whom 65 were randomized to the Fit-for-Fitness program and 65 to standard fertility treatment that did not include a lifestyle intervention, although those women could consult professionals on their own. The women in the lifestyle intervention group had to stop medical fertility treatments for the first 6 months but could use them thereafter while the controls continued to use them throughout.

Based on motivational interviewing, the program focused on womens’ individual likes and dislikes, experiences, and perceived capacities, aiming to improve healthful habits gradually and with “low intensity” so as to maintain them in the long run.

The program combined individual sessions with a nutritionist and kinesiologist every 6 weeks and 12 mandatory group sessions. The women were asked to reduce their total caloric intake by about 500 calories/day but weren’t asked to change their diets. They were also advised to increase physical activity by about 150 minutes/week.

“We want to keep it sustainable in time, so they don’t have a relapse when they become pregnant, and to help the newborn and spouse too. It’s about improving and maintaining habits,” Dr. Belan explained during the briefing.

At 6 months, mean weight changes were –3.4% versus –0.89% for the intervention versus control groups (P = .003).

“What is important for women with obesity and infertility is to improve their lifestyle, both physical activity and nutrition, even if the weight loss is minimal,” noted Dr. Baillargeon, professor of medicine, health sciences research and physiology, also at the University of Sherbrooke.

A total of 46 intervention and 52 control patients finished the 18-month study. Pregnancies occurred in 61% of the intervention group versus 39% of the controls, while spontaneous pregnancies – among those not using medical fertility treatments – occurred in 33.3% versus 12.3% (P = .009).

The primary outcome, live births at 18 months, occurred in 51.0% of the intervention group versus 36.8% of controls, which wasn’t a statistically significant difference, but was “highly clinically significant,” Dr. Belan said.
 

Cost per additional newborn similar to IVF

Costs (in Canadian dollars) considered in the analysis included those related to the management of infertility, obesity, pregnancy, and childbirth. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, a standard cost-effectiveness measure, per live birth were $24,393 from a societal perspective, $12,633 for the health system, and $5,980 for the patient.

Because the $12,633 health system cost per additional newborn with the Fit-for-Fertility program is similar to the health system’s willingness-to-pay for IVF of up to $15,000, a lifestyle intervention could be considered cost-efficient compared with the standard of care, Dr. Belan said.

“We think that the Fit-for-Fertility program could be deemed cost effective and could represent an interesting alternative to the usual standard of care for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments,” she commented.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding a larger randomized, controlled trial of the program at six Canadian centers to validate these results.

Dr. Belan, Dr. Baillargeon, and Dr. Zera reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved dasiglucagon (Zegalogue 0.6 mg/0.6 mL, Zealand Pharma) autoinjector and prefilled syringe for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes aged 6 years and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The product has a shelf-life of 36 months at refrigerated temperatures and is stable for up to 12 months at room temperature.

“This approval will help enable appropriate children and adults with diabetes to be able to address sudden and severe hypoglycemia, which can quickly progress from a mild event to an emergency,” Jeremy Pettus, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a company statement.

The approval marks the latest step in the development of newer glucagon formulations that are easier to use in hypoglycemic emergencies than the traditional formulation that requires several steps for reconstitution.

The first intranasal glucagon (Baqsimi, Eli Lilly) was approved in the United States in July 2019 for people with diabetes age 4 years and older.

In September 2019, the FDA approved another prefilled glucagon rescue pen (Gvoke HypoPen, Xeris Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of severe hypoglycemia in adult and pediatric patients age 2 years and older with diabetes.

Dasiglucagon is currently in phase 3 trials as a subcutaneous infusion for treating congenital hyperinsulinemia, and in phase 2 trials as part of a bihormonal artificial pancreas pump system.

The FDA approval was based on results from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies of dasiglucagon in children age 6-17 years and adults with type 1 diabetes.

The primary endpoint was time to achieving an increase in blood glucose of 20 mg/dL or greater from time of administration without additional intervention within 45 minutes. That endpoint was achieved in all three studies, with a median time to blood glucose recovery of 10 minutes overall, with 99% of adults recovering within 15 minutes.

The most common adverse events reported in 2% or more of study participants were nausea, vomiting, headache, and injection-site pain in both children and adults. Diarrhea was also reported in adults.  

Full launch is expected in late June 2021.

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