Miriam E. Tucker

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket expenditure – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – is still very high.

Indeed, insulin costs have remained relatively stable over time in such private insurance plans, according to another analysis that looked at all types of diabetes.

Those are the findings of two separate research letters published June 1 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year.

“Insulin is the difference between life and death for patients with type 1 diabetes, and efforts to make it more affordable are critical,” said lead author of the first letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“However, our study shows that even if insulin were free, families would still have substantial out-of-pocket costs for other health care,” he noted in a press release from his institution.

The other research letter examined trends in insulin out-of-pocket costs in 2006-2017 among U.S. patients with any type of diabetes who had different types of private health insurance plans. The study was by Amir Meiri, MD, of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Although the study showed relatively stable costs associated with insulin for many privately insured patients with diabetes over the time period examined, “monthly out-of-pocket payments” may still “be burdensome for low-income individuals,” the authors said.

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Laura M. Nally, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that “insulin is only one component of diabetes management.”

Yet they stressed: “Diabetes does not selectively occur among individuals who can afford insulin and who have health insurance; it affects people regardless of their socioeconomic status.”

“The federal health care system should urgently act to make insulin, diabetes-related supplies, and other health care services affordable and available to everyone who needs them.”

Out-of-pocket costs for supplies higher than for insulin

Dr. Chua and colleagues compared out-of-pocket costs for insulin with those for other diabetes-related items, including insulin pump supplies, and glucose meters/continuous monitors, for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes during 2018.

They included data for 65,192 patients aged 1-64 years with type 1 diabetes who had employer-sponsored coverage from medium to large firms.

The population included children of employees (12%), and 22.5% of patients had enrolled in high-deductible ($1,350 individual/$2,700 family) private plans. Overall, 56.8% used insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).

Annual out-of-pocket spending was lower for insulin ($435) than other diabetes-related supplies ($490), including insulin pump supplies, continuous and fingerstick glucose monitoring equipment, urine testing strips, pen needles, and syringes.

Mean annual overall out-of-pocket spending was $2,414, but this varied widely.

For 8% of the population spending exceeded $5,000. Insulin accounted for just 18% of overall out-of-pocket spending.

Not surprisingly, out-of-pocket spending increased with the sophistication of the diabetes technology used, ranging from just $79 for those using injections and fingerstick monitoring to $1,037 for those using both insulin pumps and CGMs.

In general, for children, out-of-pocket costs of diabetes-related supplies were considerably higher than for insulin ($823 vs. $497), while for adults the two were similar ($445 vs. $427).

“These technologies can improve quality of life and improve diabetes control for all patients, but can be especially important to the families of children with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua said.

Also not surprisingly, those with high-deductible plans had greater out-of-pocket costs in each category ($3,132 vs. $2,205 overall).

Dr. Chua said the study’s findings are particularly timely given recent efforts by states and insurers to cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin, calling these “important first steps.”

But there is still a long way to go, he said.

“Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua noted.

Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska agreed.

“Although capping insulin copayments is a step in the right direction, such a state law does not protect many individuals with federally regulated insurance plans, with Medicare, or without any insurance,” they noted.

“In addition, insulin copayment caps do little to ease the financial burden of paying for diabetes-related supplies or other healthcare services,” they pointed out.
 

Private plans shield members from out-of-pocket insulin costs

The other study examined out-of-pocket spending for 10,954,436 insulin claims for 612,071 unique patients with diabetes (either type) in different types of private commercial health plans during 2006-2017:

• High-deductible health plans (HDHP) with a health savings account (HSA), which have high medication costs because they require payment of the full reimbursement price until the annual deductible is reached (7% of claims).
• Plans with health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), which typically have tiered drug copayments and members can use their reimbursement accounts to pay for medical expenses (4% of claims).
• No-account plans (without an HSA) that also typically have tiered drug copayments (80% of claims).

The price of insulin per patient per month rose from $143 in 2006 to $280 in 2012 to $394 in 2017.

However, the share of the insulin price per member per month paid by the patient actually declined from 24% in 2006 to 16% in 2012 to just 10% in 2017.

Because of the increase in insulin price, those corresponding costs still rose from $52 in 2006 to $72 in 2012, but then dropped to $64 in 2017.

By plan type, out-of-pocket costs per member per month were lowest for those no-account plans (from $52 in 2006 to $48 in 2017) and highest for those with HDHP HSA plans ($93 in 2006 to $141 in 2017).

“The data suggest that privately insured patients have been relatively shielded from insulin price increases and that commercial health insurers have accommodated higher insulin prices by increasing premiums or deductibles for all members,” Dr. Meiri and colleagues write.
 

Most vulnerable missing from study: COVID-19 will strike further blow

Although generally agreeing with this conclusion, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska nevertheless faulted the data from Dr. Meiri and colleagues on several counts.

First, they reiterated that the population was limited to those with private insurance plans, and therefore “the groups most vulnerable to high insulin costs may be missing from the study.”

Also, the data do not capture all sources of out-of-pocket insulin spending for people with high copayments, such as the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, GoodRx, or drug manufacturer discounts.

Moreover, the editorialists noted, the study assessed only mean out-of-pocket costs without assessing differences in spending across individuals.

And, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska pointed out, the data do not account for rebates and discounts negotiated between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers. “As a result, these data on health plan spending on insulin may overestimate the net health plan expenditures,” they wrote.

Dr. Chua also warned that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major adverse impact on the diabetes community.

“Many people with private insurance have lost their jobs and insurance coverage ... This may put health care like insulin and diabetes-related supplies out of reach,” he said.

Dr. Chua has reported receiving support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Meiri has reported receiving grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for the study. Dr. Nally has reported receiving a grant from Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lipska has reported receiving support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health.

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

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket expenditure – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – is still very high.

Indeed, insulin costs have remained relatively stable over time in such private insurance plans, according to another analysis that looked at all types of diabetes.

Those are the findings of two separate research letters published June 1 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year.

“Insulin is the difference between life and death for patients with type 1 diabetes, and efforts to make it more affordable are critical,” said lead author of the first letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“However, our study shows that even if insulin were free, families would still have substantial out-of-pocket costs for other health care,” he noted in a press release from his institution.

The other research letter examined trends in insulin out-of-pocket costs in 2006-2017 among U.S. patients with any type of diabetes who had different types of private health insurance plans. The study was by Amir Meiri, MD, of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Although the study showed relatively stable costs associated with insulin for many privately insured patients with diabetes over the time period examined, “monthly out-of-pocket payments” may still “be burdensome for low-income individuals,” the authors said.

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Laura M. Nally, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that “insulin is only one component of diabetes management.”

Yet they stressed: “Diabetes does not selectively occur among individuals who can afford insulin and who have health insurance; it affects people regardless of their socioeconomic status.”

“The federal health care system should urgently act to make insulin, diabetes-related supplies, and other health care services affordable and available to everyone who needs them.”

Out-of-pocket costs for supplies higher than for insulin

Dr. Chua and colleagues compared out-of-pocket costs for insulin with those for other diabetes-related items, including insulin pump supplies, and glucose meters/continuous monitors, for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes during 2018.

They included data for 65,192 patients aged 1-64 years with type 1 diabetes who had employer-sponsored coverage from medium to large firms.

The population included children of employees (12%), and 22.5% of patients had enrolled in high-deductible ($1,350 individual/$2,700 family) private plans. Overall, 56.8% used insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).

Annual out-of-pocket spending was lower for insulin ($435) than other diabetes-related supplies ($490), including insulin pump supplies, continuous and fingerstick glucose monitoring equipment, urine testing strips, pen needles, and syringes.

Mean annual overall out-of-pocket spending was $2,414, but this varied widely.

For 8% of the population spending exceeded $5,000. Insulin accounted for just 18% of overall out-of-pocket spending.

Not surprisingly, out-of-pocket spending increased with the sophistication of the diabetes technology used, ranging from just $79 for those using injections and fingerstick monitoring to $1,037 for those using both insulin pumps and CGMs.

In general, for children, out-of-pocket costs of diabetes-related supplies were considerably higher than for insulin ($823 vs. $497), while for adults the two were similar ($445 vs. $427).

“These technologies can improve quality of life and improve diabetes control for all patients, but can be especially important to the families of children with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua said.

Also not surprisingly, those with high-deductible plans had greater out-of-pocket costs in each category ($3,132 vs. $2,205 overall).

Dr. Chua said the study’s findings are particularly timely given recent efforts by states and insurers to cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin, calling these “important first steps.”

But there is still a long way to go, he said.

“Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua noted.

Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska agreed.

“Although capping insulin copayments is a step in the right direction, such a state law does not protect many individuals with federally regulated insurance plans, with Medicare, or without any insurance,” they noted.

“In addition, insulin copayment caps do little to ease the financial burden of paying for diabetes-related supplies or other healthcare services,” they pointed out.
 

Private plans shield members from out-of-pocket insulin costs

The other study examined out-of-pocket spending for 10,954,436 insulin claims for 612,071 unique patients with diabetes (either type) in different types of private commercial health plans during 2006-2017:

• High-deductible health plans (HDHP) with a health savings account (HSA), which have high medication costs because they require payment of the full reimbursement price until the annual deductible is reached (7% of claims).
• Plans with health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), which typically have tiered drug copayments and members can use their reimbursement accounts to pay for medical expenses (4% of claims).
• No-account plans (without an HSA) that also typically have tiered drug copayments (80% of claims).

The price of insulin per patient per month rose from $143 in 2006 to $280 in 2012 to $394 in 2017.

However, the share of the insulin price per member per month paid by the patient actually declined from 24% in 2006 to 16% in 2012 to just 10% in 2017.

Because of the increase in insulin price, those corresponding costs still rose from $52 in 2006 to $72 in 2012, but then dropped to $64 in 2017.

By plan type, out-of-pocket costs per member per month were lowest for those no-account plans (from $52 in 2006 to $48 in 2017) and highest for those with HDHP HSA plans ($93 in 2006 to $141 in 2017).

“The data suggest that privately insured patients have been relatively shielded from insulin price increases and that commercial health insurers have accommodated higher insulin prices by increasing premiums or deductibles for all members,” Dr. Meiri and colleagues write.
 

Most vulnerable missing from study: COVID-19 will strike further blow

Although generally agreeing with this conclusion, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska nevertheless faulted the data from Dr. Meiri and colleagues on several counts.

First, they reiterated that the population was limited to those with private insurance plans, and therefore “the groups most vulnerable to high insulin costs may be missing from the study.”

Also, the data do not capture all sources of out-of-pocket insulin spending for people with high copayments, such as the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, GoodRx, or drug manufacturer discounts.

Moreover, the editorialists noted, the study assessed only mean out-of-pocket costs without assessing differences in spending across individuals.

And, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska pointed out, the data do not account for rebates and discounts negotiated between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers. “As a result, these data on health plan spending on insulin may overestimate the net health plan expenditures,” they wrote.

Dr. Chua also warned that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major adverse impact on the diabetes community.

“Many people with private insurance have lost their jobs and insurance coverage ... This may put health care like insulin and diabetes-related supplies out of reach,” he said.

Dr. Chua has reported receiving support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Meiri has reported receiving grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for the study. Dr. Nally has reported receiving a grant from Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lipska has reported receiving support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health.

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

For privately insured individuals with type 1 diabetes in the United States, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are typically lower than for other diabetes-related supplies. But overall out-of-pocket expenditure – taking into account everything that is needed to manage diabetes – is still very high.

Indeed, insulin costs have remained relatively stable over time in such private insurance plans, according to another analysis that looked at all types of diabetes.

Those are the findings of two separate research letters published June 1 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The first research letter examined all costs for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes, finding a mean out-of-pocket spend of approximately $2,500 a year.

“Insulin is the difference between life and death for patients with type 1 diabetes, and efforts to make it more affordable are critical,” said lead author of the first letter, Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“However, our study shows that even if insulin were free, families would still have substantial out-of-pocket costs for other health care,” he noted in a press release from his institution.

The other research letter examined trends in insulin out-of-pocket costs in 2006-2017 among U.S. patients with any type of diabetes who had different types of private health insurance plans. The study was by Amir Meiri, MD, of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

Although the study showed relatively stable costs associated with insulin for many privately insured patients with diabetes over the time period examined, “monthly out-of-pocket payments” may still “be burdensome for low-income individuals,” the authors said.

Writing in an accompanying editorial, Laura M. Nally, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, both of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., agreed that “insulin is only one component of diabetes management.”

Yet they stressed: “Diabetes does not selectively occur among individuals who can afford insulin and who have health insurance; it affects people regardless of their socioeconomic status.”

“The federal health care system should urgently act to make insulin, diabetes-related supplies, and other health care services affordable and available to everyone who needs them.”

Out-of-pocket costs for supplies higher than for insulin

Dr. Chua and colleagues compared out-of-pocket costs for insulin with those for other diabetes-related items, including insulin pump supplies, and glucose meters/continuous monitors, for privately insured patients with type 1 diabetes during 2018.

They included data for 65,192 patients aged 1-64 years with type 1 diabetes who had employer-sponsored coverage from medium to large firms.

The population included children of employees (12%), and 22.5% of patients had enrolled in high-deductible ($1,350 individual/$2,700 family) private plans. Overall, 56.8% used insulin pumps and/or continuous glucose monitors (CGMs).

Annual out-of-pocket spending was lower for insulin ($435) than other diabetes-related supplies ($490), including insulin pump supplies, continuous and fingerstick glucose monitoring equipment, urine testing strips, pen needles, and syringes.

Mean annual overall out-of-pocket spending was $2,414, but this varied widely.

For 8% of the population spending exceeded $5,000. Insulin accounted for just 18% of overall out-of-pocket spending.

Not surprisingly, out-of-pocket spending increased with the sophistication of the diabetes technology used, ranging from just $79 for those using injections and fingerstick monitoring to $1,037 for those using both insulin pumps and CGMs.

In general, for children, out-of-pocket costs of diabetes-related supplies were considerably higher than for insulin ($823 vs. $497), while for adults the two were similar ($445 vs. $427).

“These technologies can improve quality of life and improve diabetes control for all patients, but can be especially important to the families of children with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua said.

Also not surprisingly, those with high-deductible plans had greater out-of-pocket costs in each category ($3,132 vs. $2,205 overall).

Dr. Chua said the study’s findings are particularly timely given recent efforts by states and insurers to cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin, calling these “important first steps.”

But there is still a long way to go, he said.

“Policymakers should improve the affordability of all care for type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Chua noted.

Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska agreed.

“Although capping insulin copayments is a step in the right direction, such a state law does not protect many individuals with federally regulated insurance plans, with Medicare, or without any insurance,” they noted.

“In addition, insulin copayment caps do little to ease the financial burden of paying for diabetes-related supplies or other healthcare services,” they pointed out.
 

Private plans shield members from out-of-pocket insulin costs

The other study examined out-of-pocket spending for 10,954,436 insulin claims for 612,071 unique patients with diabetes (either type) in different types of private commercial health plans during 2006-2017:

• High-deductible health plans (HDHP) with a health savings account (HSA), which have high medication costs because they require payment of the full reimbursement price until the annual deductible is reached (7% of claims).
• Plans with health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), which typically have tiered drug copayments and members can use their reimbursement accounts to pay for medical expenses (4% of claims).
• No-account plans (without an HSA) that also typically have tiered drug copayments (80% of claims).

The price of insulin per patient per month rose from $143 in 2006 to $280 in 2012 to $394 in 2017.

However, the share of the insulin price per member per month paid by the patient actually declined from 24% in 2006 to 16% in 2012 to just 10% in 2017.

Because of the increase in insulin price, those corresponding costs still rose from $52 in 2006 to $72 in 2012, but then dropped to $64 in 2017.

By plan type, out-of-pocket costs per member per month were lowest for those no-account plans (from $52 in 2006 to $48 in 2017) and highest for those with HDHP HSA plans ($93 in 2006 to $141 in 2017).

“The data suggest that privately insured patients have been relatively shielded from insulin price increases and that commercial health insurers have accommodated higher insulin prices by increasing premiums or deductibles for all members,” Dr. Meiri and colleagues write.
 

Most vulnerable missing from study: COVID-19 will strike further blow

Although generally agreeing with this conclusion, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska nevertheless faulted the data from Dr. Meiri and colleagues on several counts.

First, they reiterated that the population was limited to those with private insurance plans, and therefore “the groups most vulnerable to high insulin costs may be missing from the study.”

Also, the data do not capture all sources of out-of-pocket insulin spending for people with high copayments, such as the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program, GoodRx, or drug manufacturer discounts.

Moreover, the editorialists noted, the study assessed only mean out-of-pocket costs without assessing differences in spending across individuals.

And, Dr. Nally and Dr. Lipska pointed out, the data do not account for rebates and discounts negotiated between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers. “As a result, these data on health plan spending on insulin may overestimate the net health plan expenditures,” they wrote.

Dr. Chua also warned that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a major adverse impact on the diabetes community.

“Many people with private insurance have lost their jobs and insurance coverage ... This may put health care like insulin and diabetes-related supplies out of reach,” he said.

Dr. Chua has reported receiving support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Meiri has reported receiving grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for the study. Dr. Nally has reported receiving a grant from Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Lipska has reported receiving support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the National Institutes of Health.

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

More than 1 in 10 people with diabetes hospitalized with COVID-19 die within a week, while nearly a third require mechanical ventilation, new research shows.

Data from the CORONADO (French Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes) study also revealed that body mass index (BMI) was independently associated with death or intubation at 7 days, while A_1c and use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors were not.

The presence of diabetes-related complications and older age also increased the risk of death.

The findings were published online Diabetologia by Bertrand Cariou, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at the Hôpital Guillaume et René Laennec in Nantes, France, and colleagues.
 

First study to examine specific characteristics at time of admission

Previous studies have linked diabetes to worse outcomes in COVID-19, but this is the first to examine specific characteristics before and at the time of hospital admission that predict worse outcomes among people with diabetes, study coauthor Samy Hadjadj, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“Before the CORONADO study it was ‘all diabetes [patients] are the same.’ Now we can surely consider more precisely the risk, taking age, sex, BMI, complications, and [obstructive sleep apnea] as clear ‘very high-risk situations,’” said Dr. Hadjadj, of the same institution as Dr. Cariou.

Another clinical message, Dr. Hadjadj said, is that, “even in diabetes, each increase in BMI is associated with an increase in the risk of intubation and/or death in the 7 days following admission for COVID-19. So let’s target this population as a really important population to keep social distancing and stay alert on avoiding the virus.”

But he urged caution regarding the A_1c finding. “A_1c might be associated with admission to hospital but other factors far beyond A_1c drive the prognosis as soon as a patient is admitted. It’s surprising but reasonable speculation can explain this.”

And Dr. Hadjadj said that no obvious signals were identified with regard to medication use.

“Insulin is not suspected of having adverse effects closely related to COVID-19. RAAS blockers are not deleterious but indicative of hypertension, which is a comorbidity even in diabetes patients,” he said. (None of the patients studied were taking sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide receptor agonists.)
 

_{Yet again, high BMI emerges as a major risk factor}

The study included 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 53 French hospitals during March 10-31, 2020. Participants included 88.5% with type 2 diabetes, 3% with type 1 diabetes, and 3.1% newly diagnosed on admission. Mean age was 69.8 years.

Diabetes-related disorders on admission were reported in 11.1% of participants overall. These included 132 episodes of severe hyperglycemia, including 40 of ketosis, of which 19 were ketoacidosis, and 14 hypoglycemic events. Severe anorexia was reported in 6.3%.

The composite primary endpoint, tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 29% of patients (n = 382).

Of the secondary outcomes, 31.1% (n = 410) were admitted to ICUs within 7 days of hospital admission, including 20.3% (n = 267) who required tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation.

On day 7, 10.6% (n = 140) had died and 18.0% (n = 237) were discharged.

In the univariate analysis, the primary outcome was more frequent in men (69.1% vs. 63.2%; P = .0420) and those taking RAAS blockers (61.5% vs. 55.3%; P = .0386). Median BMI was significantly higher in those in whom the primary outcome occurred (29.1 vs 28.1 kg/m²; P = .0009),

Other characteristics prior to admission associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, hypertension, micro- and macrovascular diabetes-related complications, and comorbidities such as heart failure and treated obstructive sleep apnea.

Over 40% of those admitted had such complications. Of the patients analyzed, microvascular complications (eye, kidney, and neuropathy) were present in 47% and macrovascular complications (arteries of the heart, brain, and legs) were present in 41%.

Encouragingly, there were no deaths in patients aged under 65 years with type 1 diabetes, but only 39 participants had type 1 diabetes. Other work is ongoing to establish the effect of COVID-19 in this specific population, the researchers wrote.

Among prior medications, metformin use was lower in people who died, while insulin use, RAAS blockers, beta-blockers, loop diuretics, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists were associated with death on day 7. The medication findings didn’t reach statistical significance, however.

When asked about the hint of a protective effect of metformin (odds ratio, 0.80; P = .4532), given that some experts have advised stopping it in the setting of COVID-19 because of the risk of lactic acidosis, Dr. Hadjadj said he wouldn’t necessarily stop it in all patients with COVID-19, but said, “let’s stop it in cases of severe condition.”
 

Analysis ongoing, ‘some new messages might pop up’

After adjustment for age and sex, BMI was significantly and positively associated with the primary outcome (P = .0001) but not with death on day 7 (P = .1488), and A_1c wasn’t associated with either outcome.

In a multivariable analysis that included characteristics prior to admission, BMI remained the only independent preadmission predictor associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28), while factors independently associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, diabetes complication history, and treated obstructive sleep apnea.

And after adjustment for age and sex, admission plasma glucose level was significantly and positively associated with both the primary outcome (P = .0001) and death on day 7 (P = .0059).

In the multivariate analysis, admission characteristics that predicted the primary outcome were dyspnea, lymphopenia, increased AST, and increased C-reactive protein.

Dr. Hadjadj said his team is now “focusing on specific risk factors such as obesity, age, vascular complications, medications ... to perform some deeper analyses.”

“We look forward to analyzing the data on in-hospital stay up to day 28 after admission. Some new messages might well pop up,” he added.

But in the meantime, “Elderly populations with long-term diabetes with advanced diabetes-related complications and/or treated obstructive sleep apnea were particularly at risk of early death and might require specific management to avoid infection with the novel coronavirus,” the researchers stressed.

The study received funding from the Fondation Francophone de Recherche sur le Diabète and was supported by Novo Nordisk, MSD, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and the Fédération Française des Diabétiques; Société Francophone du Diabète; and Air Liquide Healthcare International. Dr. Hadjadj reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dinno Santé, Eli Lilly, LVL, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Santé, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis.

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

More than 1 in 10 people with diabetes hospitalized with COVID-19 die within a week, while nearly a third require mechanical ventilation, new research shows.

Data from the CORONADO (French Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes) study also revealed that body mass index (BMI) was independently associated with death or intubation at 7 days, while A_1c and use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors were not.

The presence of diabetes-related complications and older age also increased the risk of death.

The findings were published online Diabetologia by Bertrand Cariou, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at the Hôpital Guillaume et René Laennec in Nantes, France, and colleagues.
 

First study to examine specific characteristics at time of admission

Previous studies have linked diabetes to worse outcomes in COVID-19, but this is the first to examine specific characteristics before and at the time of hospital admission that predict worse outcomes among people with diabetes, study coauthor Samy Hadjadj, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“Before the CORONADO study it was ‘all diabetes [patients] are the same.’ Now we can surely consider more precisely the risk, taking age, sex, BMI, complications, and [obstructive sleep apnea] as clear ‘very high-risk situations,’” said Dr. Hadjadj, of the same institution as Dr. Cariou.

Another clinical message, Dr. Hadjadj said, is that, “even in diabetes, each increase in BMI is associated with an increase in the risk of intubation and/or death in the 7 days following admission for COVID-19. So let’s target this population as a really important population to keep social distancing and stay alert on avoiding the virus.”

But he urged caution regarding the A_1c finding. “A_1c might be associated with admission to hospital but other factors far beyond A_1c drive the prognosis as soon as a patient is admitted. It’s surprising but reasonable speculation can explain this.”

And Dr. Hadjadj said that no obvious signals were identified with regard to medication use.

“Insulin is not suspected of having adverse effects closely related to COVID-19. RAAS blockers are not deleterious but indicative of hypertension, which is a comorbidity even in diabetes patients,” he said. (None of the patients studied were taking sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide receptor agonists.)
 

_{Yet again, high BMI emerges as a major risk factor}

The study included 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 53 French hospitals during March 10-31, 2020. Participants included 88.5% with type 2 diabetes, 3% with type 1 diabetes, and 3.1% newly diagnosed on admission. Mean age was 69.8 years.

Diabetes-related disorders on admission were reported in 11.1% of participants overall. These included 132 episodes of severe hyperglycemia, including 40 of ketosis, of which 19 were ketoacidosis, and 14 hypoglycemic events. Severe anorexia was reported in 6.3%.

The composite primary endpoint, tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 29% of patients (n = 382).

Of the secondary outcomes, 31.1% (n = 410) were admitted to ICUs within 7 days of hospital admission, including 20.3% (n = 267) who required tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation.

On day 7, 10.6% (n = 140) had died and 18.0% (n = 237) were discharged.

In the univariate analysis, the primary outcome was more frequent in men (69.1% vs. 63.2%; P = .0420) and those taking RAAS blockers (61.5% vs. 55.3%; P = .0386). Median BMI was significantly higher in those in whom the primary outcome occurred (29.1 vs 28.1 kg/m²; P = .0009),

Other characteristics prior to admission associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, hypertension, micro- and macrovascular diabetes-related complications, and comorbidities such as heart failure and treated obstructive sleep apnea.

Over 40% of those admitted had such complications. Of the patients analyzed, microvascular complications (eye, kidney, and neuropathy) were present in 47% and macrovascular complications (arteries of the heart, brain, and legs) were present in 41%.

Encouragingly, there were no deaths in patients aged under 65 years with type 1 diabetes, but only 39 participants had type 1 diabetes. Other work is ongoing to establish the effect of COVID-19 in this specific population, the researchers wrote.

Among prior medications, metformin use was lower in people who died, while insulin use, RAAS blockers, beta-blockers, loop diuretics, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists were associated with death on day 7. The medication findings didn’t reach statistical significance, however.

When asked about the hint of a protective effect of metformin (odds ratio, 0.80; P = .4532), given that some experts have advised stopping it in the setting of COVID-19 because of the risk of lactic acidosis, Dr. Hadjadj said he wouldn’t necessarily stop it in all patients with COVID-19, but said, “let’s stop it in cases of severe condition.”
 

Analysis ongoing, ‘some new messages might pop up’

After adjustment for age and sex, BMI was significantly and positively associated with the primary outcome (P = .0001) but not with death on day 7 (P = .1488), and A_1c wasn’t associated with either outcome.

In a multivariable analysis that included characteristics prior to admission, BMI remained the only independent preadmission predictor associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28), while factors independently associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, diabetes complication history, and treated obstructive sleep apnea.

And after adjustment for age and sex, admission plasma glucose level was significantly and positively associated with both the primary outcome (P = .0001) and death on day 7 (P = .0059).

In the multivariate analysis, admission characteristics that predicted the primary outcome were dyspnea, lymphopenia, increased AST, and increased C-reactive protein.

Dr. Hadjadj said his team is now “focusing on specific risk factors such as obesity, age, vascular complications, medications ... to perform some deeper analyses.”

“We look forward to analyzing the data on in-hospital stay up to day 28 after admission. Some new messages might well pop up,” he added.

But in the meantime, “Elderly populations with long-term diabetes with advanced diabetes-related complications and/or treated obstructive sleep apnea were particularly at risk of early death and might require specific management to avoid infection with the novel coronavirus,” the researchers stressed.

The study received funding from the Fondation Francophone de Recherche sur le Diabète and was supported by Novo Nordisk, MSD, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and the Fédération Française des Diabétiques; Société Francophone du Diabète; and Air Liquide Healthcare International. Dr. Hadjadj reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dinno Santé, Eli Lilly, LVL, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Santé, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis.

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

More than 1 in 10 people with diabetes hospitalized with COVID-19 die within a week, while nearly a third require mechanical ventilation, new research shows.

Data from the CORONADO (French Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes) study also revealed that body mass index (BMI) was independently associated with death or intubation at 7 days, while A_1c and use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors were not.

The presence of diabetes-related complications and older age also increased the risk of death.

The findings were published online Diabetologia by Bertrand Cariou, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at the Hôpital Guillaume et René Laennec in Nantes, France, and colleagues.
 

First study to examine specific characteristics at time of admission

Previous studies have linked diabetes to worse outcomes in COVID-19, but this is the first to examine specific characteristics before and at the time of hospital admission that predict worse outcomes among people with diabetes, study coauthor Samy Hadjadj, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“Before the CORONADO study it was ‘all diabetes [patients] are the same.’ Now we can surely consider more precisely the risk, taking age, sex, BMI, complications, and [obstructive sleep apnea] as clear ‘very high-risk situations,’” said Dr. Hadjadj, of the same institution as Dr. Cariou.

Another clinical message, Dr. Hadjadj said, is that, “even in diabetes, each increase in BMI is associated with an increase in the risk of intubation and/or death in the 7 days following admission for COVID-19. So let’s target this population as a really important population to keep social distancing and stay alert on avoiding the virus.”

But he urged caution regarding the A_1c finding. “A_1c might be associated with admission to hospital but other factors far beyond A_1c drive the prognosis as soon as a patient is admitted. It’s surprising but reasonable speculation can explain this.”

And Dr. Hadjadj said that no obvious signals were identified with regard to medication use.

“Insulin is not suspected of having adverse effects closely related to COVID-19. RAAS blockers are not deleterious but indicative of hypertension, which is a comorbidity even in diabetes patients,” he said. (None of the patients studied were taking sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide receptor agonists.)
 

_{Yet again, high BMI emerges as a major risk factor}

The study included 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 53 French hospitals during March 10-31, 2020. Participants included 88.5% with type 2 diabetes, 3% with type 1 diabetes, and 3.1% newly diagnosed on admission. Mean age was 69.8 years.

Diabetes-related disorders on admission were reported in 11.1% of participants overall. These included 132 episodes of severe hyperglycemia, including 40 of ketosis, of which 19 were ketoacidosis, and 14 hypoglycemic events. Severe anorexia was reported in 6.3%.

The composite primary endpoint, tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 29% of patients (n = 382).

Of the secondary outcomes, 31.1% (n = 410) were admitted to ICUs within 7 days of hospital admission, including 20.3% (n = 267) who required tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation.

On day 7, 10.6% (n = 140) had died and 18.0% (n = 237) were discharged.

In the univariate analysis, the primary outcome was more frequent in men (69.1% vs. 63.2%; P = .0420) and those taking RAAS blockers (61.5% vs. 55.3%; P = .0386). Median BMI was significantly higher in those in whom the primary outcome occurred (29.1 vs 28.1 kg/m²; P = .0009),

Other characteristics prior to admission associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, hypertension, micro- and macrovascular diabetes-related complications, and comorbidities such as heart failure and treated obstructive sleep apnea.

Over 40% of those admitted had such complications. Of the patients analyzed, microvascular complications (eye, kidney, and neuropathy) were present in 47% and macrovascular complications (arteries of the heart, brain, and legs) were present in 41%.

Encouragingly, there were no deaths in patients aged under 65 years with type 1 diabetes, but only 39 participants had type 1 diabetes. Other work is ongoing to establish the effect of COVID-19 in this specific population, the researchers wrote.

Among prior medications, metformin use was lower in people who died, while insulin use, RAAS blockers, beta-blockers, loop diuretics, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists were associated with death on day 7. The medication findings didn’t reach statistical significance, however.

When asked about the hint of a protective effect of metformin (odds ratio, 0.80; P = .4532), given that some experts have advised stopping it in the setting of COVID-19 because of the risk of lactic acidosis, Dr. Hadjadj said he wouldn’t necessarily stop it in all patients with COVID-19, but said, “let’s stop it in cases of severe condition.”
 

Analysis ongoing, ‘some new messages might pop up’

After adjustment for age and sex, BMI was significantly and positively associated with the primary outcome (P = .0001) but not with death on day 7 (P = .1488), and A_1c wasn’t associated with either outcome.

In a multivariable analysis that included characteristics prior to admission, BMI remained the only independent preadmission predictor associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28), while factors independently associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, diabetes complication history, and treated obstructive sleep apnea.

And after adjustment for age and sex, admission plasma glucose level was significantly and positively associated with both the primary outcome (P = .0001) and death on day 7 (P = .0059).

In the multivariate analysis, admission characteristics that predicted the primary outcome were dyspnea, lymphopenia, increased AST, and increased C-reactive protein.

Dr. Hadjadj said his team is now “focusing on specific risk factors such as obesity, age, vascular complications, medications ... to perform some deeper analyses.”

“We look forward to analyzing the data on in-hospital stay up to day 28 after admission. Some new messages might well pop up,” he added.

But in the meantime, “Elderly populations with long-term diabetes with advanced diabetes-related complications and/or treated obstructive sleep apnea were particularly at risk of early death and might require specific management to avoid infection with the novel coronavirus,” the researchers stressed.

The study received funding from the Fondation Francophone de Recherche sur le Diabète and was supported by Novo Nordisk, MSD, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and the Fédération Française des Diabétiques; Société Francophone du Diabète; and Air Liquide Healthcare International. Dr. Hadjadj reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dinno Santé, Eli Lilly, LVL, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Santé, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis.

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

The American Diabetes Association has dedicated a whole section of its journal, Diabetes Care, to the topic of “Diabetes and COVID-19,” publishing a range of articles with new data to help guide physicians in caring for patients.

“Certain groups are more vulnerable to COVID-19, notably older people and those with underlying medical conditions. Because diabetes is one of the conditions associated with high risk, the diabetes community urgently needs to know more about COVID-19 and its effects on people with diabetes,” an introductory commentary noted.

Entitled “COVID-19 in people with diabetes: Urgently needed lessons from early reports,” the commentary is penned by the journal’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Riddle, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Also writing in the same issue, William T. Cefalu, MD, and colleagues from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) noted it is known that the SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor. The ACE-2 receptor is known to be in the lungs and upper respiratory tract, “but we also know that it is expressed in other tissues such as heart, small and large intestines, and pancreas,” they wrote, and also “in the kidney.”

Hence, there are emerging reports of acute kidney injury resulting from COVID-19, as well as the impact on many other endocrine/metabolic and gastrointestinal outcomes.

“Pilot clinical studies (observational and interventional) are needed that will support the understanding or treatment of COVID-19–related diseases within the mission of the NIDDK,” they stated.
 

Although rapidly collected, data “offer important clues”

Some of the new ground covered in the journal articles includes an analysis of COVID-19 outcomes by type of glucose-lowering medication; remote glucose monitoring in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; a suggested approach to cardiovascular risk management in the COVID-19 era, as already reported by Medscape Medical News; and the diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes during the pandemic.

Other articles provide new data for previously reported phenomena, including obesity as a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes and the role of inpatient glycemic control on COVID-19 outcomes.

“The data reported in these articles were rapidly collected and analyzed, in most cases under urgent and stressful conditions,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues cautioned. “Thus, some of the analyses are understandably limited due to missing data, incomplete follow-up, and inability to identify infected but asymptomatic patients.”

Even so, they wrote, some points are clear. “The consistency of findings in these rapidly published reports is reassuring in terms of scientific validity, but the story unfolding is worrisome.”

Specifically, while diabetes does not appear to increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, progression to severe illness is more likely in people with diabetes and COVID-19: They are two to three times as likely to require intensive care, and to die, compared with those infected but without diabetes.

“Neither the mechanisms underlying the increased risk nor the best interventions to limit it have yet been defined, but the studies in this collection of articles offer important clues,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues wrote.
 

Existing insulin use linked to COVID-19 death risk

One of the articles is a retrospective study of 904 hospitalized COVID-19 patients by Yuchen Chen, MD, of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, and colleagues.

Among the 136 patients with diabetes, risk factors for mortality included older age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09 per year increase; P = .001) elevated C-reactive protein (aOR, 1.12; P = .043), and insulin use (aOR, 3.58; P = .009).

“Attention needs to be paid to patients with diabetes and COVID-19 who use insulin,” the Chinese authors wrote. “Whether this was due to effects of insulin itself or to characteristics of the patients for whom it was prescribed is not clear,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues noted.

Dr. Chen and colleagues also found no difference in clinical outcomes between those diabetes patients with COVID-19 who were taking an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II type I receptor blocker, compared with those who did not, which supports existing recommendations to continue use of this type of medication.
 

Remote glucose monitoring a novel tool for COVID-19 isolation

Another publication, by Gilat Shehav-Zaltzman of Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel, and colleagues, describes the use of remote continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in two hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were in isolation – one with type 1 diabetes and the other with type 2 diabetes – treated with basal-bolus insulin.

Using Medtronic CGM systems, the hospital staff was able to view patients’ real-time data uploaded to the Web from computer terminals in virus-free areas outside the patients’ rooms. The hospital’s endocrinology team had trained the intensive care staff on how to replace the sensors weekly and calibrate them twice daily.

“Converting a personal CGM system originally designed for diabetes self-management to team-based, real-time remote glucose monitoring offers a novel tool for inpatient diabetes control in COVID-19 isolation facilities,” the authors wrote.

“Such a solution in addition to ongoing remotely monitored clinical parameters (such as pulse rate, electrocardiogram, and oxygen saturation) adds to quality of diabetes care while minimizing risk of staff exposure and burden,” they observed.

Dr. Riddle and colleagues concurred: “Newer methods of remotely monitoring glucose patterns could be uniquely helpful.”

Key question: Does glycemic management make a difference?

With regard to the important issue of in-hospital control of glucose, Celestino Sardu, MD, PhD, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues reported on 59 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and moderately severe pneumonia.

They were categorized as normoglycemic (n = 34) or hyperglycemic (n = 25), as well as with or without diabetes, on the basis of a diagnosis preceding the current illness. Of the 25 patients with hyperglycemia, 15 patients were treated with insulin infusion and 10 patients were not.

In a risk-adjusted analysis, both patients with hyperglycemia and patients with diabetes had a higher risk of severe disease than did those without diabetes and with normoglycemia. Patients with hyperglycemia treated with insulin infusion had a lower risk of severe disease than did patients who didn’t receive an insulin infusion.

And although they noted limitations, the authors wrote, “Our data evidenced that optimal glucose control in the immediate postadmission period for almost 18 days was associated with a significant reduction of inflammatory cytokines and procoagulative status.”

Dr. Riddle and colleagues wrote that the findings of this unrandomized comparison were interpreted “as suggesting that insulin infusion may improve outcomes.”

“If the benefits of seeking excellent glycemic control by this means are confirmed, close monitoring of glucose levels will be essential.”
 

More on obesity and COVID-19, this time from China

Because it has become increasingly clear that obesity is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, new data from China – where this was less apparent initially – support observations in Europe and the United States.

An article by Qingxian Cai, PhD, of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, and colleagues looks at this. They found that, among 383 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the 41 patients with obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥ 28 kg/m²) were significantly more likely to progress to severe disease compared with the 203 patients classified as having normal weight (BMI, 18.5-23.9), with an odds ratio of 3.4.

A similar finding comes from Feng Gao, MD, PhD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University and colleagues, who studied 75 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and obesity (defined as a BMI > 25 in this Asian population) to 75 patients without obesity matched by age and sex. After adjustment for clinical characteristics including the presence of diabetes, those with obesity had a threefold greater risk of progression to severe or critical COVID-19 status, with a nearly linear relationship.
 

Emerging from the crisis: Protect the vulnerable, increase knowledge base

As the research community emerges from the crisis, “there should be renewed efforts for multidisciplinary research ... aimed at greatly increasing the knowledge base to understand how ... the current COVID-19 threat” affects “both healthy people and people with chronic diseases and conditions,” Dr. Cefalu and colleagues concluded in their commentary.

Dr. Riddle and coauthors agreed: “We will enter a longer interval in which we must continue to support the most vulnerable populations – especially older people, those with diabetes or obesity, and those who lack the resources to limit day-to-day exposure to infection. We hope a growing sense of community will help in this task.”

Dr. Riddle has reported receiving research grant support through Oregon Health & Science University from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and honoraria for consulting from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Theracos. Dr. Cefalu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Diabetes Association has dedicated a whole section of its journal, Diabetes Care, to the topic of “Diabetes and COVID-19,” publishing a range of articles with new data to help guide physicians in caring for patients.

“Certain groups are more vulnerable to COVID-19, notably older people and those with underlying medical conditions. Because diabetes is one of the conditions associated with high risk, the diabetes community urgently needs to know more about COVID-19 and its effects on people with diabetes,” an introductory commentary noted.

Entitled “COVID-19 in people with diabetes: Urgently needed lessons from early reports,” the commentary is penned by the journal’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Riddle, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Also writing in the same issue, William T. Cefalu, MD, and colleagues from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) noted it is known that the SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor. The ACE-2 receptor is known to be in the lungs and upper respiratory tract, “but we also know that it is expressed in other tissues such as heart, small and large intestines, and pancreas,” they wrote, and also “in the kidney.”

Hence, there are emerging reports of acute kidney injury resulting from COVID-19, as well as the impact on many other endocrine/metabolic and gastrointestinal outcomes.

“Pilot clinical studies (observational and interventional) are needed that will support the understanding or treatment of COVID-19–related diseases within the mission of the NIDDK,” they stated.
 

Although rapidly collected, data “offer important clues”

Some of the new ground covered in the journal articles includes an analysis of COVID-19 outcomes by type of glucose-lowering medication; remote glucose monitoring in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; a suggested approach to cardiovascular risk management in the COVID-19 era, as already reported by Medscape Medical News; and the diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes during the pandemic.

Other articles provide new data for previously reported phenomena, including obesity as a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes and the role of inpatient glycemic control on COVID-19 outcomes.

“The data reported in these articles were rapidly collected and analyzed, in most cases under urgent and stressful conditions,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues cautioned. “Thus, some of the analyses are understandably limited due to missing data, incomplete follow-up, and inability to identify infected but asymptomatic patients.”

Even so, they wrote, some points are clear. “The consistency of findings in these rapidly published reports is reassuring in terms of scientific validity, but the story unfolding is worrisome.”

Specifically, while diabetes does not appear to increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, progression to severe illness is more likely in people with diabetes and COVID-19: They are two to three times as likely to require intensive care, and to die, compared with those infected but without diabetes.

“Neither the mechanisms underlying the increased risk nor the best interventions to limit it have yet been defined, but the studies in this collection of articles offer important clues,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues wrote.
 

Existing insulin use linked to COVID-19 death risk

One of the articles is a retrospective study of 904 hospitalized COVID-19 patients by Yuchen Chen, MD, of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, and colleagues.

Among the 136 patients with diabetes, risk factors for mortality included older age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09 per year increase; P = .001) elevated C-reactive protein (aOR, 1.12; P = .043), and insulin use (aOR, 3.58; P = .009).

“Attention needs to be paid to patients with diabetes and COVID-19 who use insulin,” the Chinese authors wrote. “Whether this was due to effects of insulin itself or to characteristics of the patients for whom it was prescribed is not clear,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues noted.

Dr. Chen and colleagues also found no difference in clinical outcomes between those diabetes patients with COVID-19 who were taking an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II type I receptor blocker, compared with those who did not, which supports existing recommendations to continue use of this type of medication.
 

Remote glucose monitoring a novel tool for COVID-19 isolation

Another publication, by Gilat Shehav-Zaltzman of Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel, and colleagues, describes the use of remote continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in two hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were in isolation – one with type 1 diabetes and the other with type 2 diabetes – treated with basal-bolus insulin.

Using Medtronic CGM systems, the hospital staff was able to view patients’ real-time data uploaded to the Web from computer terminals in virus-free areas outside the patients’ rooms. The hospital’s endocrinology team had trained the intensive care staff on how to replace the sensors weekly and calibrate them twice daily.

“Converting a personal CGM system originally designed for diabetes self-management to team-based, real-time remote glucose monitoring offers a novel tool for inpatient diabetes control in COVID-19 isolation facilities,” the authors wrote.

“Such a solution in addition to ongoing remotely monitored clinical parameters (such as pulse rate, electrocardiogram, and oxygen saturation) adds to quality of diabetes care while minimizing risk of staff exposure and burden,” they observed.

Dr. Riddle and colleagues concurred: “Newer methods of remotely monitoring glucose patterns could be uniquely helpful.”

Key question: Does glycemic management make a difference?

With regard to the important issue of in-hospital control of glucose, Celestino Sardu, MD, PhD, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues reported on 59 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and moderately severe pneumonia.

They were categorized as normoglycemic (n = 34) or hyperglycemic (n = 25), as well as with or without diabetes, on the basis of a diagnosis preceding the current illness. Of the 25 patients with hyperglycemia, 15 patients were treated with insulin infusion and 10 patients were not.

In a risk-adjusted analysis, both patients with hyperglycemia and patients with diabetes had a higher risk of severe disease than did those without diabetes and with normoglycemia. Patients with hyperglycemia treated with insulin infusion had a lower risk of severe disease than did patients who didn’t receive an insulin infusion.

And although they noted limitations, the authors wrote, “Our data evidenced that optimal glucose control in the immediate postadmission period for almost 18 days was associated with a significant reduction of inflammatory cytokines and procoagulative status.”

Dr. Riddle and colleagues wrote that the findings of this unrandomized comparison were interpreted “as suggesting that insulin infusion may improve outcomes.”

“If the benefits of seeking excellent glycemic control by this means are confirmed, close monitoring of glucose levels will be essential.”
 

More on obesity and COVID-19, this time from China

Because it has become increasingly clear that obesity is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, new data from China – where this was less apparent initially – support observations in Europe and the United States.

An article by Qingxian Cai, PhD, of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, and colleagues looks at this. They found that, among 383 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the 41 patients with obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥ 28 kg/m²) were significantly more likely to progress to severe disease compared with the 203 patients classified as having normal weight (BMI, 18.5-23.9), with an odds ratio of 3.4.

A similar finding comes from Feng Gao, MD, PhD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University and colleagues, who studied 75 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and obesity (defined as a BMI > 25 in this Asian population) to 75 patients without obesity matched by age and sex. After adjustment for clinical characteristics including the presence of diabetes, those with obesity had a threefold greater risk of progression to severe or critical COVID-19 status, with a nearly linear relationship.
 

Emerging from the crisis: Protect the vulnerable, increase knowledge base

As the research community emerges from the crisis, “there should be renewed efforts for multidisciplinary research ... aimed at greatly increasing the knowledge base to understand how ... the current COVID-19 threat” affects “both healthy people and people with chronic diseases and conditions,” Dr. Cefalu and colleagues concluded in their commentary.

Dr. Riddle and coauthors agreed: “We will enter a longer interval in which we must continue to support the most vulnerable populations – especially older people, those with diabetes or obesity, and those who lack the resources to limit day-to-day exposure to infection. We hope a growing sense of community will help in this task.”

Dr. Riddle has reported receiving research grant support through Oregon Health & Science University from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and honoraria for consulting from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Theracos. Dr. Cefalu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Diabetes Association has dedicated a whole section of its journal, Diabetes Care, to the topic of “Diabetes and COVID-19,” publishing a range of articles with new data to help guide physicians in caring for patients.

“Certain groups are more vulnerable to COVID-19, notably older people and those with underlying medical conditions. Because diabetes is one of the conditions associated with high risk, the diabetes community urgently needs to know more about COVID-19 and its effects on people with diabetes,” an introductory commentary noted.

Entitled “COVID-19 in people with diabetes: Urgently needed lessons from early reports,” the commentary is penned by the journal’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Riddle, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Also writing in the same issue, William T. Cefalu, MD, and colleagues from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) noted it is known that the SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor. The ACE-2 receptor is known to be in the lungs and upper respiratory tract, “but we also know that it is expressed in other tissues such as heart, small and large intestines, and pancreas,” they wrote, and also “in the kidney.”

Hence, there are emerging reports of acute kidney injury resulting from COVID-19, as well as the impact on many other endocrine/metabolic and gastrointestinal outcomes.

“Pilot clinical studies (observational and interventional) are needed that will support the understanding or treatment of COVID-19–related diseases within the mission of the NIDDK,” they stated.
 

Although rapidly collected, data “offer important clues”

Some of the new ground covered in the journal articles includes an analysis of COVID-19 outcomes by type of glucose-lowering medication; remote glucose monitoring in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; a suggested approach to cardiovascular risk management in the COVID-19 era, as already reported by Medscape Medical News; and the diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes during the pandemic.

Other articles provide new data for previously reported phenomena, including obesity as a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes and the role of inpatient glycemic control on COVID-19 outcomes.

“The data reported in these articles were rapidly collected and analyzed, in most cases under urgent and stressful conditions,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues cautioned. “Thus, some of the analyses are understandably limited due to missing data, incomplete follow-up, and inability to identify infected but asymptomatic patients.”

Even so, they wrote, some points are clear. “The consistency of findings in these rapidly published reports is reassuring in terms of scientific validity, but the story unfolding is worrisome.”

Specifically, while diabetes does not appear to increase the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection, progression to severe illness is more likely in people with diabetes and COVID-19: They are two to three times as likely to require intensive care, and to die, compared with those infected but without diabetes.

“Neither the mechanisms underlying the increased risk nor the best interventions to limit it have yet been defined, but the studies in this collection of articles offer important clues,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues wrote.
 

Existing insulin use linked to COVID-19 death risk

One of the articles is a retrospective study of 904 hospitalized COVID-19 patients by Yuchen Chen, MD, of the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, and colleagues.

Among the 136 patients with diabetes, risk factors for mortality included older age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09 per year increase; P = .001) elevated C-reactive protein (aOR, 1.12; P = .043), and insulin use (aOR, 3.58; P = .009).

“Attention needs to be paid to patients with diabetes and COVID-19 who use insulin,” the Chinese authors wrote. “Whether this was due to effects of insulin itself or to characteristics of the patients for whom it was prescribed is not clear,” Dr. Riddle and colleagues noted.

Dr. Chen and colleagues also found no difference in clinical outcomes between those diabetes patients with COVID-19 who were taking an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II type I receptor blocker, compared with those who did not, which supports existing recommendations to continue use of this type of medication.
 

Remote glucose monitoring a novel tool for COVID-19 isolation

Another publication, by Gilat Shehav-Zaltzman of Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel, and colleagues, describes the use of remote continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in two hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were in isolation – one with type 1 diabetes and the other with type 2 diabetes – treated with basal-bolus insulin.

Using Medtronic CGM systems, the hospital staff was able to view patients’ real-time data uploaded to the Web from computer terminals in virus-free areas outside the patients’ rooms. The hospital’s endocrinology team had trained the intensive care staff on how to replace the sensors weekly and calibrate them twice daily.

“Converting a personal CGM system originally designed for diabetes self-management to team-based, real-time remote glucose monitoring offers a novel tool for inpatient diabetes control in COVID-19 isolation facilities,” the authors wrote.

“Such a solution in addition to ongoing remotely monitored clinical parameters (such as pulse rate, electrocardiogram, and oxygen saturation) adds to quality of diabetes care while minimizing risk of staff exposure and burden,” they observed.

Dr. Riddle and colleagues concurred: “Newer methods of remotely monitoring glucose patterns could be uniquely helpful.”

Key question: Does glycemic management make a difference?

With regard to the important issue of in-hospital control of glucose, Celestino Sardu, MD, PhD, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, and colleagues reported on 59 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and moderately severe pneumonia.

They were categorized as normoglycemic (n = 34) or hyperglycemic (n = 25), as well as with or without diabetes, on the basis of a diagnosis preceding the current illness. Of the 25 patients with hyperglycemia, 15 patients were treated with insulin infusion and 10 patients were not.

In a risk-adjusted analysis, both patients with hyperglycemia and patients with diabetes had a higher risk of severe disease than did those without diabetes and with normoglycemia. Patients with hyperglycemia treated with insulin infusion had a lower risk of severe disease than did patients who didn’t receive an insulin infusion.

And although they noted limitations, the authors wrote, “Our data evidenced that optimal glucose control in the immediate postadmission period for almost 18 days was associated with a significant reduction of inflammatory cytokines and procoagulative status.”

Dr. Riddle and colleagues wrote that the findings of this unrandomized comparison were interpreted “as suggesting that insulin infusion may improve outcomes.”

“If the benefits of seeking excellent glycemic control by this means are confirmed, close monitoring of glucose levels will be essential.”
 

More on obesity and COVID-19, this time from China

Because it has become increasingly clear that obesity is a risk factor for severe COVID-19, new data from China – where this was less apparent initially – support observations in Europe and the United States.

An article by Qingxian Cai, PhD, of Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China, and colleagues looks at this. They found that, among 383 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the 41 patients with obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥ 28 kg/m²) were significantly more likely to progress to severe disease compared with the 203 patients classified as having normal weight (BMI, 18.5-23.9), with an odds ratio of 3.4.

A similar finding comes from Feng Gao, MD, PhD, of the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University and colleagues, who studied 75 patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and obesity (defined as a BMI > 25 in this Asian population) to 75 patients without obesity matched by age and sex. After adjustment for clinical characteristics including the presence of diabetes, those with obesity had a threefold greater risk of progression to severe or critical COVID-19 status, with a nearly linear relationship.
 

Emerging from the crisis: Protect the vulnerable, increase knowledge base

As the research community emerges from the crisis, “there should be renewed efforts for multidisciplinary research ... aimed at greatly increasing the knowledge base to understand how ... the current COVID-19 threat” affects “both healthy people and people with chronic diseases and conditions,” Dr. Cefalu and colleagues concluded in their commentary.

Dr. Riddle and coauthors agreed: “We will enter a longer interval in which we must continue to support the most vulnerable populations – especially older people, those with diabetes or obesity, and those who lack the resources to limit day-to-day exposure to infection. We hope a growing sense of community will help in this task.”

Dr. Riddle has reported receiving research grant support through Oregon Health & Science University from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and honoraria for consulting from Adocia, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Theracos. Dr. Cefalu has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

The strong link between glucose control and COVID-19 outcomes has been reaffirmed in the largest study thus far of hospitalized patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

The retrospective, multicenter study, from 7,337 hospitalized patients with COVID-19, was published online in Cell Metabolism by Lihua Zhu, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and colleagues.

The study finds that, while the presence of type 2 diabetes per se is a risk factor for worse COVID-19 outcomes, better glycemic control among those with preexisting type 2 diabetes appears to be associated with significant reductions in adverse outcomes and death.

“We were surprised to see such favorable outcomes in the well-controlled blood glucose group among patients with COVID-19 and preexisting type 2 diabetes,” senior author Hongliang Li, also of Renmin Hospital, said in a statement.

“Considering that people with diabetes had much higher risk for death and various complications, and there are no specific drugs for COVID-19, our findings indicate that controlling blood glucose well may act as an effective auxiliary approach to improve the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and preexisting diabetes,” Dr. Li added.

Asked to comment on the findings, David Klonoff, MD, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills–Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif., cautioned that the way in which the “well-controlled” diabetes group was distinguished from the “poorly controlled” one in this study used a “nonstandard method for distinguishing these groups based on variability.”

So “there was a great deal of overlap between the two groups,” he observed.
 

Diabetes itself was associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes

Of the 7,337 participants with confirmed COVID-19 in the Chinese study, 13% (952) had preexisting type 2 diabetes while the other 6,385 did not have diabetes.

Median ages were 62 years for those with and 53 years for those without diabetes. As has been reported several times since the pandemic began, the presence of diabetes was associated with a worse COVID-19 prognosis.

Those with preexisting diabetes received significantly more antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, antihypertensive drugs, and vasoactive drugs than did those without diabetes. They were also more likely to receive oxygen inhalation (76.9% vs. 61.2%), noninvasive ventilation (10.2% vs. 3.9%), and invasive ventilation (3.6% vs. 0.7%).

Over 28 days starting with the day of admission, the type 2 diabetes group was significantly more likely to die compared with those without diabetes (7.8% vs. 2.7%; P < .001), with a crude hazard ratio of 2.90 (P < .001). After adjustments for age, gender, and COVID-19 severity, the diabetes group was still significantly more likely to die, with a hazard ratio of 1.49 (P = .005).

Those with diabetes were also significantly more likely to develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44), acute kidney injury (3.01), and septic shock (1.95).

“The results were unequivocal to implicate diabetes mellitus in higher risk of death and other detrimental outcomes of COVID-19,” the authors wrote, although they caution “there were notable differences in the covariate distributions between the two groups.”

With T2D, tighter glycemic control predicted better outcome

Among the 952 with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes, 282 individuals had “well-controlled” blood glucose, ranging from 3.9 to 10.0 mmol/L (~70 - 180 mg/dL) with median 6.4 mmol/L (115 mg/dL) and hemoglobin A_1c of 7.3%.

The other 528 were “poorly controlled,” defined as the lowest fasting glucose level 3.9 mmol/L or above and the highest 2-hour postprandial glucose exceeding 10.0 mmol/L, with median 10.9 mmol/L (196 mg/dL) and HbA_1c of 8.1%.

Just as with the diabetes vs. no diabetes comparison, those in the “well-controlled” blood glucose group had lower use of antivirals, antibiotics, antifungals, systemic corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and vasoactive drugs.

They also were less likely to require oxygen inhalation (70.2% vs. 83.5%), non-invasive ventilation (4.6% vs. 11.9%), invasive ventilation (0% vs. 4.2%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (0% vs. 0.8%).

In-hospital death was significantly lower in the “well-controlled” group (1.1% vs. 11.0%; crude hazard ratio, 0.09; P < .001). After adjustments for the previous factors plus site effect, the difference remained significant (0.13; P < .001). Adjusted hazard ratio for acute respiratory distress syndrome was 0.41 (P < .001) and for acute heart injury it was 0.21 (P = .003).
 

Stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 associated with greater mortality

Klonoff was senior author on a previous study from the United States that showed that both diabetes and uncontrolled hyperglycemia among people without prior diabetes – the latter “presumably due to stress,” he said – were strong predictors of mortality among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The new Chinese research only looks at individuals with previously diagnosed type 2 diabetes, Klonoff pointed out in an interview.

“The article by Zhu et al. did not look at outcomes of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia. Per [the U.S. study], in COVID-19 stress hyperglycemia, compared to diabetes, was associated with greater mortality.”

In addition, although international guidance now advises optimizing blood glucose levels in all patients with hyperglycemia and COVID-19, it’s actually not yet totally clear which in-target range improves COVID-19 prognosis the best, Dr. Klonoff said.

He is now working on a study aimed at answering that question.

The researchers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff is a consultant to Abbott, Ascensia, Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo, Roche, and ThirdWayv.

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

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New recommendations for the management of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates during and after the COVID-19 pandemic shift the focus from body mass index (BMI) alone to medical conditions most likely to be ameliorated by the procedures.

Meant as a guide for both surgeons and referring clinicians, the document was published online May 7 as a Personal View in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

“Millions of elective operations have been on hold because of COVID-19. ... In the next few months, we’re going to face a huge backlog of procedures of all types. Even when we resume doing surgery it’s not going to be business as usual for many months. ... Hospital clinicians and managers want to make decisions about who’s going to get those slots first,” lead author of the international 23-member writing panel, Francesco Rubino, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

Rubino is professor of metabolic and bariatric surgery at King’s College Hospital, London, UK.

The recommendations include a guide for prioritizing patients eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery – the former referring to when it’s performed primarily for obesity and the latter for type 2 diabetes – once the pandemic restrictions on nonessential surgery are lifted.

Rather than prioritizing patients by BMI, the scheme focuses on medical comorbidities to place patients into “expedited” or “standard” access categories.

Historically, bariatric and metabolic surgery have had a low uptake due to factors such as lack of insurance coverage and stigma, with many physicians inappropriately viewing it as risky, ineffective, and/or as a “last resort” treatment, Rubino said.

“They don’t refer for surgery even though we have all the evidence that the benefits for patients are unquestionable,” he added.

Because of that background, “in the situation of limited capacity, patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely to be penalized compared to any other conditions that need elective surgery,” Rubino stressed.

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C., called the document a “really valuable thought piece.”

Noting that only about 1% to 2% of people who are eligible for bariatric or metabolic surgery actually undergo the procedures, Kahan said, “because so few people get the surgery we’ve never really run into a situation of undersupply or overdemand.

“But, as we’re moving forward, one would think that we will run into that scenario. So, better prioritizing and triaging patients likely will be more important down the line, given how effective surgery has been shown to be now, both short term and long term.”

Risks of obesity, shifting away from BMI as the main metric

The new document extensively discusses the risks of obesity – including now as a major COVID-19 risk factor – and the benefits of the procedures and risks of delaying them.

It also addresses ongoing management of patients who had bariatric/metabolic surgery in the past and nonsurgical treatment to mitigate harm until patients can undergo the procedures.

Another important problem the document addresses, Rubino said, is the current BMI-focused bariatric/metabolic surgery criteria (≥ 40 kg/m2 or ≥ 35 kg/m2 with at least one obesity-related comorbidity).

“BMI is an epidemiological measure, not a measure of disease. But we select patients for bariatric surgery by saying who is eligible [without assessing] who has more or less severe disease, and who is at more or less risk for short-term complications from the disease compared to others,” he explained. “We don’t have any mechanism, even in normal times, let alone during a pandemic, to differentiate between patients who need surgery sooner rather than later.”

Indeed, Kahan said, “Traditionally we tend to oversimplify risk stratification in terms of how heavy people are. While that is one factor of importance, it’s far from the only factor and may not be the most important factor.”

In “someone who is relatively lighter but sicker, it would be sensible, in my mind, to prioritize them for a potentially curative procedure compared with someone who is heavier – even much heavier – but is not as sick,” he added.
 

“Pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue”

The document confirms that bariatric/metabolic surgery should remain suspended during the most intense phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and only resume once overall restrictions on nonessential surgeries are lifted.

Exceptions are limited to emergency endoscopic interventions for complications of prior surgery, such as hemorrhage or leaks.

A section offers guidance for pharmacologic and other nonsurgical options to mitigate harm from delaying the procedures including use of drugs that promote weight loss, such as glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Once less-urgent surgeries are allowed to resume, a prioritization scheme addresses which patients should receive “expedited access” (risk of harm if delayed beyond 90 days) versus “standard access” (unlikely to deteriorate within 6 months) within three indication categories: “diabetes (metabolic) surgery,” “obesity (bariatric) surgery,” or “adjuvant bariatric and metabolic surgery.”

Examples of patients who would qualify for “expedited” access in the “diabetes surgery” category include those with an A_1c of 8% or greater despite use of two or more oral medications or insulin use, those with a history of cardiovascular disease, and/or those with stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease.

For the “obesity surgery” group, priority patients include those with a BMI of 60 kg/m2 or greater or with severe obesity hypoventilation syndrome or severe sleep apnea.

And for the adjuvant category, those requiring weight loss to allow for other treatments, such as organ transplants, would be expedited.

Individuals with less-severe obesity or chronic conditions could have their surgeries put off until a later date.

The panel also recommends that even though keyhole surgery involves aerosol-generating techniques that could increase the risk for coronavirus infection, laparoscopic approaches are still preferred over open procedures because they carry lower risks for complications and result in shorter hospital stays, thereby lowering infection risk.

Appropriate personal protective equipment is, of course, advised for use by clinicians.

Kahan said of the document: “I think it’s a very sensible piece where they’re thinking through things that haven’t really needed to be thought through all that much. That’s partly with respect to COVID-19, but even beyond that I think this will be a valuable platform going forward.”

Indeed, Rubino said, “The pandemic forces us to do what was long overdue.”

Rubino has reported being on advisory boards for GI Dynamics, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk, has reported receiving consulting fees and research grants from Ethicon Endo-Surgery and Medtronic. Kahan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidance is available for managing inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in COVID-19 patients with diabetes using subcutaneous insulin.

“The glycemic management of many COVID-19–positive patients with diabetes is proving extremely complex, with huge fluctuations in glucose control and the need for very high doses of insulin,” says Diabetes UK’s National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team.

“Intravenous infusion pumps, also required for inotropes, are at a premium and there may be the need to consider the use of subcutaneous or intramuscular insulin protocols,” they note.

Updated as of April 29, all of the information of the National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team is available on the Diabetes UK website.

The new inpatient management graphic adds more detail to the previous “front-door” guidance, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The document stressed that, as well as identifying patients with known diabetes, it is imperative that all newly admitted patients with COVID-19 are evaluated for diabetes, as the infection is known to cause new-onset diabetes.
 

Subcutaneous insulin dosing

The new graphic gives extensive details on subcutaneous insulin dosing in place of variable rate intravenous insulin when infusion pumps are not available, and when the patient has a glucose level above 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) but does not have DKA or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.

However, the advice is not intended for people with COVID-19 causing severe insulin resistance in the intensive care unit.

The other new guidance graphic on managing DKA or hyperosmolar state in people with COVID-19 using subcutaneous insulin is also intended for situations where intravenous infusion isn’t available.
 

Seek help from specialist diabetes team when needed

This is not to be used for mixed DKA/hyperosmolar state or for patients who are pregnant, have severe metabolic derangement, other significant comorbidity, or impaired consciousness, however.

For those situations, the advice is to seek help from a specialist diabetes team, says Diabetes UK.

Specialist teams will be available to answer diabetes queries, both by signposting to relevant existing local documents and also by providing patient-specific advice.

Indeed, NHS England recommends that such a team be available in every hospital, with a lead consultant designated each day to co-ordinate these services who must be free of other clinical duties when doing so. The role involves co-ordination of the whole service from the emergency department through to liaison with other specialties and managers.

Also newly updated is a page with extensive information for patients, including advice for staying at home, medication use, self-isolating, shielding, hospital and doctor appointments, need for urgent medical advice, and going to the hospital.

It also covers how coronavirus can affect people with diabetes, children and school, pregnancy, work situations, and tips for picking up prescriptions.

Another, shorter document with COVID-19 advice for patients has been posted by the JDRF and Beyond Type 1 Alliance.

It has also been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, Harvard Medical School, and International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, in partnership with many other professional organizations, including the International Diabetes Federation, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists.

The shorter document covers topics such as personal hygiene, distancing, diabetes management, and seeking treatment, as well as links to other resources on what to do when health insurance is lost and legal rights.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidance is available for managing inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in COVID-19 patients with diabetes using subcutaneous insulin.

“The glycemic management of many COVID-19–positive patients with diabetes is proving extremely complex, with huge fluctuations in glucose control and the need for very high doses of insulin,” says Diabetes UK’s National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team.

“Intravenous infusion pumps, also required for inotropes, are at a premium and there may be the need to consider the use of subcutaneous or intramuscular insulin protocols,” they note.

Updated as of April 29, all of the information of the National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team is available on the Diabetes UK website.

The new inpatient management graphic adds more detail to the previous “front-door” guidance, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The document stressed that, as well as identifying patients with known diabetes, it is imperative that all newly admitted patients with COVID-19 are evaluated for diabetes, as the infection is known to cause new-onset diabetes.
 

Subcutaneous insulin dosing

The new graphic gives extensive details on subcutaneous insulin dosing in place of variable rate intravenous insulin when infusion pumps are not available, and when the patient has a glucose level above 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) but does not have DKA or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.

However, the advice is not intended for people with COVID-19 causing severe insulin resistance in the intensive care unit.

The other new guidance graphic on managing DKA or hyperosmolar state in people with COVID-19 using subcutaneous insulin is also intended for situations where intravenous infusion isn’t available.
 

Seek help from specialist diabetes team when needed

This is not to be used for mixed DKA/hyperosmolar state or for patients who are pregnant, have severe metabolic derangement, other significant comorbidity, or impaired consciousness, however.

For those situations, the advice is to seek help from a specialist diabetes team, says Diabetes UK.

Specialist teams will be available to answer diabetes queries, both by signposting to relevant existing local documents and also by providing patient-specific advice.

Indeed, NHS England recommends that such a team be available in every hospital, with a lead consultant designated each day to co-ordinate these services who must be free of other clinical duties when doing so. The role involves co-ordination of the whole service from the emergency department through to liaison with other specialties and managers.

Also newly updated is a page with extensive information for patients, including advice for staying at home, medication use, self-isolating, shielding, hospital and doctor appointments, need for urgent medical advice, and going to the hospital.

It also covers how coronavirus can affect people with diabetes, children and school, pregnancy, work situations, and tips for picking up prescriptions.

Another, shorter document with COVID-19 advice for patients has been posted by the JDRF and Beyond Type 1 Alliance.

It has also been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, Harvard Medical School, and International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, in partnership with many other professional organizations, including the International Diabetes Federation, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists.

The shorter document covers topics such as personal hygiene, distancing, diabetes management, and seeking treatment, as well as links to other resources on what to do when health insurance is lost and legal rights.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New guidance is available for managing inpatient hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in COVID-19 patients with diabetes using subcutaneous insulin.

“The glycemic management of many COVID-19–positive patients with diabetes is proving extremely complex, with huge fluctuations in glucose control and the need for very high doses of insulin,” says Diabetes UK’s National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team.

“Intravenous infusion pumps, also required for inotropes, are at a premium and there may be the need to consider the use of subcutaneous or intramuscular insulin protocols,” they note.

Updated as of April 29, all of the information of the National Diabetes Inpatient COVID Response Team is available on the Diabetes UK website.

The new inpatient management graphic adds more detail to the previous “front-door” guidance, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

The document stressed that, as well as identifying patients with known diabetes, it is imperative that all newly admitted patients with COVID-19 are evaluated for diabetes, as the infection is known to cause new-onset diabetes.
 

Subcutaneous insulin dosing

The new graphic gives extensive details on subcutaneous insulin dosing in place of variable rate intravenous insulin when infusion pumps are not available, and when the patient has a glucose level above 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) but does not have DKA or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state.

However, the advice is not intended for people with COVID-19 causing severe insulin resistance in the intensive care unit.

The other new guidance graphic on managing DKA or hyperosmolar state in people with COVID-19 using subcutaneous insulin is also intended for situations where intravenous infusion isn’t available.
 

Seek help from specialist diabetes team when needed

This is not to be used for mixed DKA/hyperosmolar state or for patients who are pregnant, have severe metabolic derangement, other significant comorbidity, or impaired consciousness, however.

For those situations, the advice is to seek help from a specialist diabetes team, says Diabetes UK.

Specialist teams will be available to answer diabetes queries, both by signposting to relevant existing local documents and also by providing patient-specific advice.

Indeed, NHS England recommends that such a team be available in every hospital, with a lead consultant designated each day to co-ordinate these services who must be free of other clinical duties when doing so. The role involves co-ordination of the whole service from the emergency department through to liaison with other specialties and managers.

Also newly updated is a page with extensive information for patients, including advice for staying at home, medication use, self-isolating, shielding, hospital and doctor appointments, need for urgent medical advice, and going to the hospital.

It also covers how coronavirus can affect people with diabetes, children and school, pregnancy, work situations, and tips for picking up prescriptions.

Another, shorter document with COVID-19 advice for patients has been posted by the JDRF and Beyond Type 1 Alliance.

It has also been endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, Harvard Medical School, and International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, in partnership with many other professional organizations, including the International Diabetes Federation, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists.

The shorter document covers topics such as personal hygiene, distancing, diabetes management, and seeking treatment, as well as links to other resources on what to do when health insurance is lost and legal rights.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A just-launched study of the type 2 diabetes agent dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 is raising eyebrows, given that several expert groups have advised that drugs in this class – the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors – be stopped in all patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients With COVID-19 (DARE-19) study is sponsored by AstraZeneca and Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute.

The trial will assess whether dapagliflozin reduces the risks of disease progression, clinical complications, and death because of COVID-19 in patients with type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and/or mild to moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD).

“Dapagliflozin has demonstrated cardio- and renal-protective benefits and improved outcomes in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and CKD,” said the principal investigator of DARE-19, Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, a cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo.

And “patients with COVID-19 and underlying cardiometabolic disease appear to be at the highest risk of morbid complications,” he explained in an AstraZeneca statement.

“Through DARE-19, we hope to decrease the severity of illness, and prevent cardiovascular, respiratory, and kidney decompensation, which are common in patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Kosiborod continued.

However, advice to stop SGLT2 inhibitors in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of its associated DKA risk has come from several channels.

These include initial guidance from Diabetes UK; experts who spoke during an American Diabetes Association webinar; and most recently, an international panel of diabetes experts.

Some clinicians went so far as to say that they view the trial as potentially dangerous, while others said they could see some logic to it, as long as it is carefully managed.
 

“A dangerous proposition – a DARE I would not take”

Partha Kar, MD, of Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust and national clinical director of diabetes at NHS England, said in an interview: “It’s interesting to see [AstraZeneca] embark on a study with a particular class of drug whereby ... [in] the UK we have said that if you get sent to hospital with COVID-19 you should stop [SGLT2 inhibitors] immediately.”

It “sounds like a risky proposition to go ahead with, [and it] definitely made me raise an eyebrow,” he added.

Nephrologist Bruce R. Leslie, MD, of Seventh Doctor Consulting in Princeton, N.J., agreed with Dr. Kar.

“Giving SGLT2 inhibitors to patients in the DARE-19 study is a dangerous proposition because these drugs can induce ketoacidosis during the stress of acute illness such as COVID-19. ... Moreover, ketoacidosis is associated with hypercoagulability which could be especially dangerous in COVID-19, given that it has been causing thrombophilia with large-vessel occlusive strokes in young patients,” he said in an interview.

“One wonders how these risks were assessed by the authorities that approved the DARE-19 study,” said Dr. Leslie, who formerly worked for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

“How does the sponsor intend to secure informed consent given the risks? This is a DARE I would not take,” he said.

Asked to address these concerns, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that “the DARE-19 trial will assess both the efficacy and the safety of dapagliflozin in this patient population in a closely monitored environment of a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial. The trial protocol excludes patients with type 1 diabetes or at high risk for DKA.

“Furthermore, the protocol includes detailed specific instructions to ensure careful monitoring for DKA, including frequent assessments of acid-base status in the hospital setting. The safety data will be closely monitored by an independent data-monitoring committee,” he continued.

Dr. Kosiborod also pointed out that there is “no systematically collected information on the use of dapagliflozin or any other SGLT2 inhibitor in patients being treated for COVID-19, including the associated potential benefits, possible risks such as DKA, and the balance of these potential benefits and risks.”

DARE-19 design: Several outcomes will be examined

The DARE-19 trial is designed to enroll 900 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and oxygen saturation of 94% or greater.

Inclusion criteria include a medical history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or stage 3-4 CKD. Exclusion criteria include current SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, type 1 diabetes, severe CKD, and severe COVID-19.

Dapagliflozin is approved in the EU for use in some patients with type 1 diabetes; this is not the case in the United States, although SGLT2 inhibitors in general are sometimes used off label in these patients.

Patients in DARE-19 will be randomized to 10 mg/day dapagliflozin or placebo for 30 days, in addition to standard care, in participating hospital. Primary outcomes are time to first occurrence of either death or new or worsened organ dysfunction, including respiratory decompensation, new or worsening heart failure, requirement for vasopressor therapy, ventricular tachycardia, and renal failure.

Secondary outcomes include a composite of time to death from any cause, time to new/worsened organ dysfunction, clinical status at day 30, and time to hospital discharge.

Rationale for the study

Irl B. Hirsch, MD, professor and diabetes treatment and teaching chair at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview that he does see some logic to the trial.

Admitting that he doesn’t know much about “COVID-19 cardiomyopathy” – which would be one of the targets of dapagliflozin – other than it is quite common, he said that this, along with the potential renal benefits of dapagliflozin in the setting of COVID-19, make the study “intriguing.”

“Perhaps there is some rationale to it,” he said. However, “my concern is these sick COVID-19 patients are often acidemic, and besides the very complex acid-base challenges we see with intubated patients, these patients likely have combination lactic and ketoacidemia, the latter at least some from starvation.

“Still, if enough dextrose and insulin are provided to prevent ketoacid accumulation, my guess is it would do at least as well as hydroxychloroquine,” he said.

And Simon Heller, MD, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield (England), said in an interview: “I think it is quite a brave study, mainly because of the increased risk of DKA.

“However, on the basis that these patients will be carefully monitored, the risk of DKA shouldn’t be great. I think it is important that patients with type 2 diabetes can participate whenever possible in such trials,” he said.

The estimated completion date for DARE-19 is December 2020.

Dr. Kosiborod has reported receiving grant support, honoraria, and/or research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Eisai, Janssen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Glytec, Intarcia Therapeutics, Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, Amarin, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Leslie has reported owning stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Lilly. Dr. Hirsch has reported consulting for Abbott Diabetes Care, Roche, and Bigfoot Biomedical, conducting research for Medtronic, and is a diabetes editor for UpToDate. Dr. Heller has received advisory or consultation fees from Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, and Becton Dickinson; has served as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Takeda; and has received research support from Medtronic UK. He is on the advisory board for Medscape. Dr. Kar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with hypothyroidism who choose desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) over levothyroxine alone perceive that it works better, but patients may not be aware of the risks, new research suggests.

Those were among the findings from qualitative analyses of nearly 700 online posts from three popular online hypothyroidism forums that found that 75% of patients felt they fared better on DTE than the standard therapy of levothyroxine (LT4).

A select group of patients do better on combined T4/T3

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, of New York University Langone Health, said in an interview, “Animal-derived desiccated thyroid hormone contains both T4 and T3. We typically do not recommend using this because it can vary in concentration, meaning that the actual preparation is not physiologic.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, a coauthor of the 2012 joint clinical practice guidelines on hypothyroidism by the American Thyroid Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, added that one of the major concerns about using DTE is the risk for iatrogenic hyperthyroidism, which could potentially lead to atrial fibrillation and fractures.

“That is one of the main factors that drive many professional societies to really use caution regarding DTE. That’s also why major societies recommend against using DTE ... based on the evidence to date,” she said.

The whole issue of “combination therapy” in hypothyroidism is contentious, however. Physicians can also prescribe a “combination” of synthetic levothyroxine (LT4) and triiodothyronine (LT3) treatment; this, along with use of DTE products, has been a subject of debate for many years.

The current (2014) American Thyroid Association guidelines do not specifically rule out use of synthetic LT4/LT3 therapy, rather they “recommend only against the routine use of combination therapy.” And although they don’t expressly endorse use of DTE, they removed a statement saying it “should not be used.”

“There is definitely a select group of patients who do better on combined T4/T3 treatment, and we’re still trying to delineate who that population is,”Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

“As long as these patients are closely monitored and aware of the risk of hyperthyroidism and have their levels followed to ensure that they’re not hyperthyroid, in select cases this is appropriate.”

“But, first-line is ensuring that a good evaluation occurs. ... Clearly this helps us understand that we do need more studies in this area – well-designed, blinded studies to really help us get to the bottom of this controversy.”
 

Those taking DTE cite improved symptoms, well-being

Dr. Toloza and colleagues analyzed 673 posts from three online forums, WebMD (Medscape’s parent company), PatientsLikeMe, and Drugs.com, selected from an initial 1,235 posts because they included more complete information.

About half (51%, n = 257) of patients had primary hypothyroidism/Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, 25% (n = 126) had postsurgical hypothyroidism, and 16% (n = 81) had postablation hypothyroidism. Among the 172 posts in which DTE dose information was available, the mean dose was 84.1 mg/day. Treatment duration ranged widely, from 2 weeks to 45 years.

Among the posts describing the source of the DTE prescription, the initial interest was driven mainly by the patient in 54% (n = 88), while 46% (n = 74) said that a clinician drove their interest in trying DTE. (The type of clinician was not reported.)

Among posts mentioning the source of DTE, local pharmacies were the most common (63%, n = 75), followed by pharmacies outside the United States (31%, n = 37), and online (6%, n = 7).

Previous thyroid treatments were mentioned in 300 posts, of which 93% mentioned LT4 monotherapy.

Among the reasons for changing to DTE were no improvement in clinical symptoms (47%, n = 75), development of side effects (24%, n = 38), no change in overall well-being (22%, n = 36), and no changes in laboratory work-up (7%, n = 12).

Perceived benefits of DTE included improvement in clinical symptoms (56%, n = 155), change in overall well-being (34%, n = 94), possibility of reaching previous health status (7%, n = 19), and low cost, compared with previous treatment (3%, n = 8).

Specific symptoms reported to have improved included fatigue (28%, n = 43), weight gain (17%, n = 26), and neurocognitive symptoms (5%, n = 8). The average time to notice benefits with DTE was about 30 days but ranged widely from 2 days to 4 months.

The majority of posts (77%, n = 99) stated that DTE was more effective than their previous therapy, while 13% (n = 17) described it as equally effective, and 10% (n = 13) said it was less effective.

Side effects of DTE were described by 20% (n = 136), including weight loss (15%), fatigue (11%), palpitations (11%), heat intolerance (11%), sleep disturbances (10%), high blood pressure (7%), and hair loss (5%).
 

“Doctors think they know how u feel”

A qualitative analysis of the posts yielded five major themes: experience with previous therapies before starting DTE, perceived effectiveness and benefits of DTE, DTE side effects, need for individualized therapy for hypothyroidism, and barriers to obtaining DTE.

One patient posted: “Synthroid [levothyroxine] did not help ... and gives me bad side effects. ... My endocrinologist blamed all side effects on everything except the Synthroid.”

Another wrote, “It [Armour] changed my life. ...I’m glad I found a medication that makes me feel normal again. ... All have improved; moods, skin (no itching), no headaches, goiter is down.”

Others cited the lower cost of Armour compared with Synthroid.

However, some expressed negative experiences with DTE, such as, “My doctor expected that this medication would help me with brain fog, energy, and tiredness. I experienced the opposite.”

And some couldn’t obtain it. One wrote, “Doctors think they know how u feel and do not even tell you about Armour. I asked my doctor and was told there was not enough studies on it to show its effectiveness.”
 

Better evaluation, more data needed

Dr. Pessah-Pollack pointed out that the study data don’t address whether patients’ initially prescribed levothyroxine doses were optimal, and noted that sometimes changes are needed, such as during pregnancy, following weight gain, or if the patient is taking other certain medications.

“It’s unclear from patient-reported symptoms whether or not they actually had an evaluation of their thyroid levels to ensure that their dose of thyroid hormone was correct before switching over to T4/T3 replacement. ... There are many factors that need to be taken into account before we decide that the medication itself isn’t working.”

What’s sorely needed, she said, are “well-designed, blinded studies that look at this controversy.”

“Here, we don’t know why patients are feeling better. ... We need to do additional work including validated symptom questionnaires and comparing thyroid levels of patients who are on Armour thyroid with those on levothyroxine monotherapy.”

Dr. Toloza agrees: “It is not possible to say that DTE is working better for the user due to the limitations and the nature of the data used in our study.”

“However, our findings are in-line with previously published research, which has shown that a subset of patients may prefer DTE to levothyroxine and have higher satisfaction with this treatment. Nevertheless, the reason behind this is still not well understood,” and it should be further investigated.

Dr. Toloza and colleagues reported that they had no conflicts of interests. Dr. Pessah-Pollack has reported being an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim-Eli Lilly and Radius Health, and a moderator for Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with hypothyroidism who choose desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) over levothyroxine alone perceive that it works better, but patients may not be aware of the risks, new research suggests.

Those were among the findings from qualitative analyses of nearly 700 online posts from three popular online hypothyroidism forums that found that 75% of patients felt they fared better on DTE than the standard therapy of levothyroxine (LT4).

A select group of patients do better on combined T4/T3

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, of New York University Langone Health, said in an interview, “Animal-derived desiccated thyroid hormone contains both T4 and T3. We typically do not recommend using this because it can vary in concentration, meaning that the actual preparation is not physiologic.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, a coauthor of the 2012 joint clinical practice guidelines on hypothyroidism by the American Thyroid Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, added that one of the major concerns about using DTE is the risk for iatrogenic hyperthyroidism, which could potentially lead to atrial fibrillation and fractures.

“That is one of the main factors that drive many professional societies to really use caution regarding DTE. That’s also why major societies recommend against using DTE ... based on the evidence to date,” she said.

The whole issue of “combination therapy” in hypothyroidism is contentious, however. Physicians can also prescribe a “combination” of synthetic levothyroxine (LT4) and triiodothyronine (LT3) treatment; this, along with use of DTE products, has been a subject of debate for many years.

The current (2014) American Thyroid Association guidelines do not specifically rule out use of synthetic LT4/LT3 therapy, rather they “recommend only against the routine use of combination therapy.” And although they don’t expressly endorse use of DTE, they removed a statement saying it “should not be used.”

“There is definitely a select group of patients who do better on combined T4/T3 treatment, and we’re still trying to delineate who that population is,”Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

“As long as these patients are closely monitored and aware of the risk of hyperthyroidism and have their levels followed to ensure that they’re not hyperthyroid, in select cases this is appropriate.”

“But, first-line is ensuring that a good evaluation occurs. ... Clearly this helps us understand that we do need more studies in this area – well-designed, blinded studies to really help us get to the bottom of this controversy.”
 

Those taking DTE cite improved symptoms, well-being

Dr. Toloza and colleagues analyzed 673 posts from three online forums, WebMD (Medscape’s parent company), PatientsLikeMe, and Drugs.com, selected from an initial 1,235 posts because they included more complete information.

About half (51%, n = 257) of patients had primary hypothyroidism/Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, 25% (n = 126) had postsurgical hypothyroidism, and 16% (n = 81) had postablation hypothyroidism. Among the 172 posts in which DTE dose information was available, the mean dose was 84.1 mg/day. Treatment duration ranged widely, from 2 weeks to 45 years.

Among the posts describing the source of the DTE prescription, the initial interest was driven mainly by the patient in 54% (n = 88), while 46% (n = 74) said that a clinician drove their interest in trying DTE. (The type of clinician was not reported.)

Among posts mentioning the source of DTE, local pharmacies were the most common (63%, n = 75), followed by pharmacies outside the United States (31%, n = 37), and online (6%, n = 7).

Previous thyroid treatments were mentioned in 300 posts, of which 93% mentioned LT4 monotherapy.

Among the reasons for changing to DTE were no improvement in clinical symptoms (47%, n = 75), development of side effects (24%, n = 38), no change in overall well-being (22%, n = 36), and no changes in laboratory work-up (7%, n = 12).

Perceived benefits of DTE included improvement in clinical symptoms (56%, n = 155), change in overall well-being (34%, n = 94), possibility of reaching previous health status (7%, n = 19), and low cost, compared with previous treatment (3%, n = 8).

Specific symptoms reported to have improved included fatigue (28%, n = 43), weight gain (17%, n = 26), and neurocognitive symptoms (5%, n = 8). The average time to notice benefits with DTE was about 30 days but ranged widely from 2 days to 4 months.

The majority of posts (77%, n = 99) stated that DTE was more effective than their previous therapy, while 13% (n = 17) described it as equally effective, and 10% (n = 13) said it was less effective.

Side effects of DTE were described by 20% (n = 136), including weight loss (15%), fatigue (11%), palpitations (11%), heat intolerance (11%), sleep disturbances (10%), high blood pressure (7%), and hair loss (5%).
 

“Doctors think they know how u feel”

A qualitative analysis of the posts yielded five major themes: experience with previous therapies before starting DTE, perceived effectiveness and benefits of DTE, DTE side effects, need for individualized therapy for hypothyroidism, and barriers to obtaining DTE.

One patient posted: “Synthroid [levothyroxine] did not help ... and gives me bad side effects. ... My endocrinologist blamed all side effects on everything except the Synthroid.”

Another wrote, “It [Armour] changed my life. ...I’m glad I found a medication that makes me feel normal again. ... All have improved; moods, skin (no itching), no headaches, goiter is down.”

Others cited the lower cost of Armour compared with Synthroid.

However, some expressed negative experiences with DTE, such as, “My doctor expected that this medication would help me with brain fog, energy, and tiredness. I experienced the opposite.”

And some couldn’t obtain it. One wrote, “Doctors think they know how u feel and do not even tell you about Armour. I asked my doctor and was told there was not enough studies on it to show its effectiveness.”
 

Better evaluation, more data needed

Dr. Pessah-Pollack pointed out that the study data don’t address whether patients’ initially prescribed levothyroxine doses were optimal, and noted that sometimes changes are needed, such as during pregnancy, following weight gain, or if the patient is taking other certain medications.

“It’s unclear from patient-reported symptoms whether or not they actually had an evaluation of their thyroid levels to ensure that their dose of thyroid hormone was correct before switching over to T4/T3 replacement. ... There are many factors that need to be taken into account before we decide that the medication itself isn’t working.”

What’s sorely needed, she said, are “well-designed, blinded studies that look at this controversy.”

“Here, we don’t know why patients are feeling better. ... We need to do additional work including validated symptom questionnaires and comparing thyroid levels of patients who are on Armour thyroid with those on levothyroxine monotherapy.”

Dr. Toloza agrees: “It is not possible to say that DTE is working better for the user due to the limitations and the nature of the data used in our study.”

“However, our findings are in-line with previously published research, which has shown that a subset of patients may prefer DTE to levothyroxine and have higher satisfaction with this treatment. Nevertheless, the reason behind this is still not well understood,” and it should be further investigated.

Dr. Toloza and colleagues reported that they had no conflicts of interests. Dr. Pessah-Pollack has reported being an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim-Eli Lilly and Radius Health, and a moderator for Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with hypothyroidism who choose desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) over levothyroxine alone perceive that it works better, but patients may not be aware of the risks, new research suggests.

Those were among the findings from qualitative analyses of nearly 700 online posts from three popular online hypothyroidism forums that found that 75% of patients felt they fared better on DTE than the standard therapy of levothyroxine (LT4).

A select group of patients do better on combined T4/T3

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Rachel Pessah-Pollack, MD, of New York University Langone Health, said in an interview, “Animal-derived desiccated thyroid hormone contains both T4 and T3. We typically do not recommend using this because it can vary in concentration, meaning that the actual preparation is not physiologic.”

Dr. Pessah-Pollack, a coauthor of the 2012 joint clinical practice guidelines on hypothyroidism by the American Thyroid Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, added that one of the major concerns about using DTE is the risk for iatrogenic hyperthyroidism, which could potentially lead to atrial fibrillation and fractures.

“That is one of the main factors that drive many professional societies to really use caution regarding DTE. That’s also why major societies recommend against using DTE ... based on the evidence to date,” she said.

The whole issue of “combination therapy” in hypothyroidism is contentious, however. Physicians can also prescribe a “combination” of synthetic levothyroxine (LT4) and triiodothyronine (LT3) treatment; this, along with use of DTE products, has been a subject of debate for many years.

The current (2014) American Thyroid Association guidelines do not specifically rule out use of synthetic LT4/LT3 therapy, rather they “recommend only against the routine use of combination therapy.” And although they don’t expressly endorse use of DTE, they removed a statement saying it “should not be used.”

“There is definitely a select group of patients who do better on combined T4/T3 treatment, and we’re still trying to delineate who that population is,”Dr. Pessah-Pollack said.

“As long as these patients are closely monitored and aware of the risk of hyperthyroidism and have their levels followed to ensure that they’re not hyperthyroid, in select cases this is appropriate.”

“But, first-line is ensuring that a good evaluation occurs. ... Clearly this helps us understand that we do need more studies in this area – well-designed, blinded studies to really help us get to the bottom of this controversy.”
 

Those taking DTE cite improved symptoms, well-being

Dr. Toloza and colleagues analyzed 673 posts from three online forums, WebMD (Medscape’s parent company), PatientsLikeMe, and Drugs.com, selected from an initial 1,235 posts because they included more complete information.

About half (51%, n = 257) of patients had primary hypothyroidism/Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, 25% (n = 126) had postsurgical hypothyroidism, and 16% (n = 81) had postablation hypothyroidism. Among the 172 posts in which DTE dose information was available, the mean dose was 84.1 mg/day. Treatment duration ranged widely, from 2 weeks to 45 years.

Among the posts describing the source of the DTE prescription, the initial interest was driven mainly by the patient in 54% (n = 88), while 46% (n = 74) said that a clinician drove their interest in trying DTE. (The type of clinician was not reported.)

Among posts mentioning the source of DTE, local pharmacies were the most common (63%, n = 75), followed by pharmacies outside the United States (31%, n = 37), and online (6%, n = 7).

Previous thyroid treatments were mentioned in 300 posts, of which 93% mentioned LT4 monotherapy.

Among the reasons for changing to DTE were no improvement in clinical symptoms (47%, n = 75), development of side effects (24%, n = 38), no change in overall well-being (22%, n = 36), and no changes in laboratory work-up (7%, n = 12).

Perceived benefits of DTE included improvement in clinical symptoms (56%, n = 155), change in overall well-being (34%, n = 94), possibility of reaching previous health status (7%, n = 19), and low cost, compared with previous treatment (3%, n = 8).

Specific symptoms reported to have improved included fatigue (28%, n = 43), weight gain (17%, n = 26), and neurocognitive symptoms (5%, n = 8). The average time to notice benefits with DTE was about 30 days but ranged widely from 2 days to 4 months.

The majority of posts (77%, n = 99) stated that DTE was more effective than their previous therapy, while 13% (n = 17) described it as equally effective, and 10% (n = 13) said it was less effective.

Side effects of DTE were described by 20% (n = 136), including weight loss (15%), fatigue (11%), palpitations (11%), heat intolerance (11%), sleep disturbances (10%), high blood pressure (7%), and hair loss (5%).
 

“Doctors think they know how u feel”

A qualitative analysis of the posts yielded five major themes: experience with previous therapies before starting DTE, perceived effectiveness and benefits of DTE, DTE side effects, need for individualized therapy for hypothyroidism, and barriers to obtaining DTE.

One patient posted: “Synthroid [levothyroxine] did not help ... and gives me bad side effects. ... My endocrinologist blamed all side effects on everything except the Synthroid.”

Another wrote, “It [Armour] changed my life. ...I’m glad I found a medication that makes me feel normal again. ... All have improved; moods, skin (no itching), no headaches, goiter is down.”

Others cited the lower cost of Armour compared with Synthroid.

However, some expressed negative experiences with DTE, such as, “My doctor expected that this medication would help me with brain fog, energy, and tiredness. I experienced the opposite.”

And some couldn’t obtain it. One wrote, “Doctors think they know how u feel and do not even tell you about Armour. I asked my doctor and was told there was not enough studies on it to show its effectiveness.”
 

Better evaluation, more data needed

Dr. Pessah-Pollack pointed out that the study data don’t address whether patients’ initially prescribed levothyroxine doses were optimal, and noted that sometimes changes are needed, such as during pregnancy, following weight gain, or if the patient is taking other certain medications.

“It’s unclear from patient-reported symptoms whether or not they actually had an evaluation of their thyroid levels to ensure that their dose of thyroid hormone was correct before switching over to T4/T3 replacement. ... There are many factors that need to be taken into account before we decide that the medication itself isn’t working.”

What’s sorely needed, she said, are “well-designed, blinded studies that look at this controversy.”

“Here, we don’t know why patients are feeling better. ... We need to do additional work including validated symptom questionnaires and comparing thyroid levels of patients who are on Armour thyroid with those on levothyroxine monotherapy.”

Dr. Toloza agrees: “It is not possible to say that DTE is working better for the user due to the limitations and the nature of the data used in our study.”

“However, our findings are in-line with previously published research, which has shown that a subset of patients may prefer DTE to levothyroxine and have higher satisfaction with this treatment. Nevertheless, the reason behind this is still not well understood,” and it should be further investigated.

Dr. Toloza and colleagues reported that they had no conflicts of interests. Dr. Pessah-Pollack has reported being an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim-Eli Lilly and Radius Health, and a moderator for Sanofi.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one in five individuals with cancer who are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors develop thyroid dysfunction, new research suggests.

Sebastian Kaulitzki/Fotolia

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of many different types of cancers, but can also trigger a variety of immune-related adverse effects. As these drugs become more widely used, rates of these events appear to be more common in the real-world compared with clinical trial settings.

In their new study, Zoe Quandt, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and colleagues specifically looked at thyroid dysfunction in their own institution’s EHR data and found more than double the rate of hypothyroidism and more than triple the rate of hyperthyroidism, compared with rates in published trials.

Moreover, in contrast to previous studies that have found differences in thyroid dysfunction by checkpoint inhibitor type, Dr. Quandt and colleagues instead found significant differences by cancer type.

Dr. Quandt presented the findings during a virtual press briefing held March 31originally scheduled for ENDO 2020.

“Thyroid dysfunction following checkpoint inhibitor therapy appears to be much more common than was previously reported in clinical trials, and this is one of the first studies to show differences by cancer type rather than by checkpoint inhibitor type,” Dr. Quandt said during the presentation.

However, she also cautioned that there’s “a lot more research to be done to validate case definitions and validate these findings.”

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, said in an interview, “These drugs are becoming so much more commonly used, so it’s not surprising that we’re seeing more endocrine complications, especially thyroid disease.”

“Endocrinologists need to work closely with oncologists to make sure patients are being screened and followed appropriately.”

‘A much higher percentage than we were expecting’

Dr. Quandt’s study included 1,146 individuals treated with checkpoint inhibitors at UCSF during 2012-2018 who did not have thyroid cancer or preexisting thyroid dysfunction.

Pembrolizumab (Keytruda) was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (Opdivo) (20%). Less than 10% of patients received atezolizumab (Tecentriq), durvalumab (Imfizi), ipilimumab (Yervoy) monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of checkpoint inhibitors.

A total of 19.1% developed thyroid disease, with 13.4% having hypothyroidism and 9.5% hyperthyroidism. These figures far exceed those found in a recent meta-analysis of 38 randomized clinical trials of checkpoint inhibitors that included 7551 patients.

“Using this approach, we found a much higher percentage of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction than we were expecting,” Dr. Quandt said.

In both cases, the two categories – hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism – aren’t mutually exclusive as hypothyroidism can arise de novo or subsequent to hyperthyroidism.

Dr Lieb commented, “It would be interesting to see what the causes of hyperthyroidism are – thyroiditis or Graves disease.”

Dr. Quandt mentioned a possible reason for the large difference between clinical trial and real-world data.

“Once we’re actually using these drugs outside of clinical trials, some of the restrictions about using them in people with other autoimmune diseases have been lifted, so my guess is that as we give them to a broader population we’re seeing more of these [adverse effects],” she suggested.

Also, “In the initial trials, people weren’t quite as aware of the possibilities of these side effects, so now we’re doing many more labs. Patients get thyroid function tests with every infusion, so I think we’re probably catching more patients who develop disease.”
 

Differences by cancer type, not checkpoint inhibitor type

And in a new twist, Dr. Quandt found that, in contrast to the differences seen by checkpoint inhibitor type in randomized trials, “surprisingly, we found that this difference did not reach statistical significance.”

“Instead, we saw that cancer type was associated with development of thyroid dysfunction, even after taking checkpoint inhibitor type into account.”

The percentages of patients who developed thyroid dysfunction ranged from 9.7% of those with glioblastoma to 40.0% of those with renal cell carcinoma.

The reason for this is not clear, said Dr. Quandt in an interview.

One possibility relates to other treatments patients with cancer also receive. In renal cell carcinoma, for example, patients also are treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, which can also cause thyroid dysfunction, so they may be more susceptible. Or there may be shared antigens activating the immune system.

“That’s definitely one of the questions we’re looking at,” she said.

Dr. Quandt and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Loss of meibomian glands in the eye, which contribute to producing tears, appears to be associated with high rates of dry eye in individuals with diabetes and may serve as a biomarker for suboptimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Gloria Wu, MD, an ophthalmologist at the University of California, San Francisco, presented the findings from a small study using infrared imaging of the eyelids in 120 patients with dry eye during a virtual press briefing held March 30, originally scheduled for the ENDO 2020 meeting.

The meibomian glands are the vertical striations that line the margins of the lower eyelids. They produce the lipid that combines with aqueous fluid from the lacrimal gland to create the tear film. Absence of meibomian glands can lead to dry eyes, eye pain, discomfort, and blurred vision.

Dry eye affects about 7% of the U.S. population, compared with 57% of people with type 1 diabetes and 70% with type 2 diabetes. Two proposed mechanisms for the phenomenon in diabetes are microischemia and inflammation, Dr. Wu said.

In her study, loss of meibomian glands was far more common among the 60 participants with dry eye and diabetes than among the 60 participants with dry eye but without diabetes, and the amount of gland loss was directly linked to A_1c level.

The findings suggest that loss of meibomian glands could serve as a diabetes biomarker, particularly in underserved areas where A_1c testing might not be readily available.

Dr. Wu noted many newer smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy 10S and iPhone 10, Xs, and 11, have infrared cameras that could help characterize dry eye in patients with diabetes.

“In the future, we hope patients can use [smartphones] and flip their own eyelids and take a picture. We hope that in rural health clinics and community health centers we can use this device that people have ... When people complain of dry eye and they have diabetes we can consider [closer diabetes monitoring],” said Dr. Wu.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, said in an interview: “It’s important for providers who care for people with diabetes to know that diabetes is associated with a high incidence of meibomian gland dysfunction leading to dry eye. That’s another reason people with diabetes need to make sure they see their eye care specialist on a regular basis.

“When I ask patients if they’ve seen their eye specialist I may add dry eye to my list of questions rather than just asking them when was the last time they went,” added Dr. Lieb, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.

“I may ask them if they have symptoms of dry eye, and if they do, it’s something they need to talk about with that individual.”
 

Gland disappearance correlated with glycemic control

Dr. Wu and colleagues retrospectively reviewed electronic health records for 120 patients diagnosed with dry eye: 60 patients with and 60 patients without type 2 diabetes.

Those with diabetes were a mean age of 65 years, and were split evenly between men and women. The controls were younger, averaging 54 years, and comprised 37 men and 23 women.

Researchers performed infrared imaging (820 nm) of the lid; percentage loss of meibomian glands was calculated for each eye, then averaged per patient.

They found that 51.5% of patients in the diabetes group had lost meibomian glands, compared with just 11.3% of controls, a highly significant difference (P = .0001).

When A_1c was also assessed, only 4 of 60 participants with A_1c ≤ 5.9% lost ≥ 25% of the glands, compared with 55 of 60 participants with A_1c ≥ 6.0%.

And specifically among those with diabetes, 35 of 37 with A_1c > 6.6% lost > 40% of the glands, compared with just 12 of 23 participants with A_1c < 6.5% (all P < .0001).

“In patients with dry eye and diabetes, loss of meibomian glands is associated with elevated A_1c ... [and] may suggest a need for ... further monitoring of the patient’s diabetic condition,” the researchers noted.

Asked whether the glands could re-grow with improved glycemic control, Dr. Wu said she has not looked at that in people with diabetes, but in some patients who receive intensive treatment for dry eye with artificial tears or cyclosporine, the glands do grow back after about 6 months.

Dr. Lieb said he found the smartphone diagnostic idea “fascinating, especially in an area where you might not be able to easily measure an A_1c. Most people have access to point-of-care A_1c testing but not everybody can make it to a doctor’s office.”

And, he added, “anything that’s noninvasive has some potential benefit.”

Dr. Wu and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Loss of meibomian glands in the eye, which contribute to producing tears, appears to be associated with high rates of dry eye in individuals with diabetes and may serve as a biomarker for suboptimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Gloria Wu, MD, an ophthalmologist at the University of California, San Francisco, presented the findings from a small study using infrared imaging of the eyelids in 120 patients with dry eye during a virtual press briefing held March 30, originally scheduled for the ENDO 2020 meeting.

The meibomian glands are the vertical striations that line the margins of the lower eyelids. They produce the lipid that combines with aqueous fluid from the lacrimal gland to create the tear film. Absence of meibomian glands can lead to dry eyes, eye pain, discomfort, and blurred vision.

Dry eye affects about 7% of the U.S. population, compared with 57% of people with type 1 diabetes and 70% with type 2 diabetes. Two proposed mechanisms for the phenomenon in diabetes are microischemia and inflammation, Dr. Wu said.

In her study, loss of meibomian glands was far more common among the 60 participants with dry eye and diabetes than among the 60 participants with dry eye but without diabetes, and the amount of gland loss was directly linked to A_1c level.

The findings suggest that loss of meibomian glands could serve as a diabetes biomarker, particularly in underserved areas where A_1c testing might not be readily available.

Dr. Wu noted many newer smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy 10S and iPhone 10, Xs, and 11, have infrared cameras that could help characterize dry eye in patients with diabetes.

“In the future, we hope patients can use [smartphones] and flip their own eyelids and take a picture. We hope that in rural health clinics and community health centers we can use this device that people have ... When people complain of dry eye and they have diabetes we can consider [closer diabetes monitoring],” said Dr. Wu.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, said in an interview: “It’s important for providers who care for people with diabetes to know that diabetes is associated with a high incidence of meibomian gland dysfunction leading to dry eye. That’s another reason people with diabetes need to make sure they see their eye care specialist on a regular basis.

“When I ask patients if they’ve seen their eye specialist I may add dry eye to my list of questions rather than just asking them when was the last time they went,” added Dr. Lieb, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.

“I may ask them if they have symptoms of dry eye, and if they do, it’s something they need to talk about with that individual.”
 

Gland disappearance correlated with glycemic control

Dr. Wu and colleagues retrospectively reviewed electronic health records for 120 patients diagnosed with dry eye: 60 patients with and 60 patients without type 2 diabetes.

Those with diabetes were a mean age of 65 years, and were split evenly between men and women. The controls were younger, averaging 54 years, and comprised 37 men and 23 women.

Researchers performed infrared imaging (820 nm) of the lid; percentage loss of meibomian glands was calculated for each eye, then averaged per patient.

They found that 51.5% of patients in the diabetes group had lost meibomian glands, compared with just 11.3% of controls, a highly significant difference (P = .0001).

When A_1c was also assessed, only 4 of 60 participants with A_1c ≤ 5.9% lost ≥ 25% of the glands, compared with 55 of 60 participants with A_1c ≥ 6.0%.

And specifically among those with diabetes, 35 of 37 with A_1c > 6.6% lost > 40% of the glands, compared with just 12 of 23 participants with A_1c < 6.5% (all P < .0001).

“In patients with dry eye and diabetes, loss of meibomian glands is associated with elevated A_1c ... [and] may suggest a need for ... further monitoring of the patient’s diabetic condition,” the researchers noted.

Asked whether the glands could re-grow with improved glycemic control, Dr. Wu said she has not looked at that in people with diabetes, but in some patients who receive intensive treatment for dry eye with artificial tears or cyclosporine, the glands do grow back after about 6 months.

Dr. Lieb said he found the smartphone diagnostic idea “fascinating, especially in an area where you might not be able to easily measure an A_1c. Most people have access to point-of-care A_1c testing but not everybody can make it to a doctor’s office.”

And, he added, “anything that’s noninvasive has some potential benefit.”

Dr. Wu and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Loss of meibomian glands in the eye, which contribute to producing tears, appears to be associated with high rates of dry eye in individuals with diabetes and may serve as a biomarker for suboptimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Gloria Wu, MD, an ophthalmologist at the University of California, San Francisco, presented the findings from a small study using infrared imaging of the eyelids in 120 patients with dry eye during a virtual press briefing held March 30, originally scheduled for the ENDO 2020 meeting.

The meibomian glands are the vertical striations that line the margins of the lower eyelids. They produce the lipid that combines with aqueous fluid from the lacrimal gland to create the tear film. Absence of meibomian glands can lead to dry eyes, eye pain, discomfort, and blurred vision.

Dry eye affects about 7% of the U.S. population, compared with 57% of people with type 1 diabetes and 70% with type 2 diabetes. Two proposed mechanisms for the phenomenon in diabetes are microischemia and inflammation, Dr. Wu said.

In her study, loss of meibomian glands was far more common among the 60 participants with dry eye and diabetes than among the 60 participants with dry eye but without diabetes, and the amount of gland loss was directly linked to A_1c level.

The findings suggest that loss of meibomian glands could serve as a diabetes biomarker, particularly in underserved areas where A_1c testing might not be readily available.

Dr. Wu noted many newer smartphones, including the Samsung Galaxy 10S and iPhone 10, Xs, and 11, have infrared cameras that could help characterize dry eye in patients with diabetes.

“In the future, we hope patients can use [smartphones] and flip their own eyelids and take a picture. We hope that in rural health clinics and community health centers we can use this device that people have ... When people complain of dry eye and they have diabetes we can consider [closer diabetes monitoring],” said Dr. Wu.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist David C. Lieb, MD, said in an interview: “It’s important for providers who care for people with diabetes to know that diabetes is associated with a high incidence of meibomian gland dysfunction leading to dry eye. That’s another reason people with diabetes need to make sure they see their eye care specialist on a regular basis.

“When I ask patients if they’ve seen their eye specialist I may add dry eye to my list of questions rather than just asking them when was the last time they went,” added Dr. Lieb, associate professor of medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk.

“I may ask them if they have symptoms of dry eye, and if they do, it’s something they need to talk about with that individual.”
 

Gland disappearance correlated with glycemic control

Dr. Wu and colleagues retrospectively reviewed electronic health records for 120 patients diagnosed with dry eye: 60 patients with and 60 patients without type 2 diabetes.

Those with diabetes were a mean age of 65 years, and were split evenly between men and women. The controls were younger, averaging 54 years, and comprised 37 men and 23 women.

Researchers performed infrared imaging (820 nm) of the lid; percentage loss of meibomian glands was calculated for each eye, then averaged per patient.

They found that 51.5% of patients in the diabetes group had lost meibomian glands, compared with just 11.3% of controls, a highly significant difference (P = .0001).

When A_1c was also assessed, only 4 of 60 participants with A_1c ≤ 5.9% lost ≥ 25% of the glands, compared with 55 of 60 participants with A_1c ≥ 6.0%.

And specifically among those with diabetes, 35 of 37 with A_1c > 6.6% lost > 40% of the glands, compared with just 12 of 23 participants with A_1c < 6.5% (all P < .0001).

“In patients with dry eye and diabetes, loss of meibomian glands is associated with elevated A_1c ... [and] may suggest a need for ... further monitoring of the patient’s diabetic condition,” the researchers noted.

Asked whether the glands could re-grow with improved glycemic control, Dr. Wu said she has not looked at that in people with diabetes, but in some patients who receive intensive treatment for dry eye with artificial tears or cyclosporine, the glands do grow back after about 6 months.

Dr. Lieb said he found the smartphone diagnostic idea “fascinating, especially in an area where you might not be able to easily measure an A_1c. Most people have access to point-of-care A_1c testing but not everybody can make it to a doctor’s office.”

And, he added, “anything that’s noninvasive has some potential benefit.”

Dr. Wu and Dr. Lieb have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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