Mitchel L. Zoler, PhD

The streak of positive phase 3 trial results for the novel “twincretin” tirzepatide when treating patients with type 2 diabetes continued in a report in The Lancet on results from the SURPASS-3 trial, which compared weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide against daily treatment with insulin degludec in patients inadequately controlled on metformin alone or on metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

Despite positive results in SURPASS-3, as well as in four other pivotal trials that are in the process of releasing full results, the safety and efficacy picture of tirzepatide still includes several as-yet unresolved issues, including the true incidence rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects, the role these effects play in weight loss during tirzepatide treatment, and the drug’s effect on important endpoints beyond weight loss and glycemic control such as cardiovascular outcomes and renal function, said two Australian experts who coauthored a comment on the new SURPASS-3 report.

Tirzepatide is called a “twincretin” because the molecule acts as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, the drug class that includes semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) and liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and also as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Trial results reported to date suggest that tirzepatide “might be more potent than available GLP-1 receptor agonists,” based on evidence of superior glycemic control it produced relative to semaglutide in results from the SURPASS-2 phase 3 trial reported in August 2021, wrote Christopher K. Rayner, MD, and Michael Horowitz, MD, in their comment.

Uncertainty about gastrointestinal adverse effects

“Limitations of SURPASS-3 include the relatively small number of Asian and Black” patients enrolled, “and an open-label design that carries a risk for bias” when tallying the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects, which the trial recorded based on self-reports by enrolled patients.

A better design would use validated questionnaires geared to discerning gastrointestinal symptoms like the ones used in trials involving patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, wrote Dr. Rayner, a professor of gastroenterology at the University of Adelaide, and Dr. Horowitz, a professor at the same institution and also director of the endocrine and metabolic unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital.

This approach would “allow for more robust evaluation of whether gastrointestinal symptoms are associated with increased weight loss,” they proposed, a possible partial explanation for the weight loss of some patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Additional outstanding questions about tirzepatide include the contribution resulting from the drug’s stimulation of the GIP receptor, as well as the role of GLP-1 receptor stimulation by tirzepatide in slowing gastric emptying. And they also cite the still-unreported effects of tirzepatide on cardiovascular events, fatty liver disease, and kidney function, and its longer-term effects with chronic treatment beyond a year.

All five of the recently completed SURPASS trials ran for 40-52 weeks.

Tirzepatide surpasses insulin degludec’s glycemic control

SURPASS-3 enrolled 1,444 patients with type 2 diabetes at 122 sites in 13 countries during 2019. The study’s primary endpoint was mean change in hemoglobin A1c from baseline after 52 weeks on treatment. The results showed that the A1c reduction with tirzepatide treatment significantly exceeded the drop produced by insulin degludec by 0.59%, 0.86%, and 1.04%, respectively, across the three tirzepatide dosages tested in a dose-response fashion, according to the recent publication.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects were gastrointestinal, which decreased with continued treatment, and tirzepatide produced fewer episodes of hypoglycemia, compared with insulin degludec (Tresiba).

In addition to full reports now out from SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3, researchers also recently published full primary results from SURPASS-1. Results from SURPASS-5 appeared in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions in June 2021 but have not yet been published in a full report, and the primary results from SURPASS-4are expected in a report during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

SURPASS-3 and the other trials of tirzepatide were funded by Lilly, the company developing the drug. Dr. Rayner has been an adviser to Allergen and Glyscend, and has received research funding from Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Horowitz has received symposia fees from Lilly, as well as from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

The streak of positive phase 3 trial results for the novel “twincretin” tirzepatide when treating patients with type 2 diabetes continued in a report in The Lancet on results from the SURPASS-3 trial, which compared weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide against daily treatment with insulin degludec in patients inadequately controlled on metformin alone or on metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

Despite positive results in SURPASS-3, as well as in four other pivotal trials that are in the process of releasing full results, the safety and efficacy picture of tirzepatide still includes several as-yet unresolved issues, including the true incidence rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects, the role these effects play in weight loss during tirzepatide treatment, and the drug’s effect on important endpoints beyond weight loss and glycemic control such as cardiovascular outcomes and renal function, said two Australian experts who coauthored a comment on the new SURPASS-3 report.

Tirzepatide is called a “twincretin” because the molecule acts as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, the drug class that includes semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) and liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and also as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Trial results reported to date suggest that tirzepatide “might be more potent than available GLP-1 receptor agonists,” based on evidence of superior glycemic control it produced relative to semaglutide in results from the SURPASS-2 phase 3 trial reported in August 2021, wrote Christopher K. Rayner, MD, and Michael Horowitz, MD, in their comment.

Uncertainty about gastrointestinal adverse effects

“Limitations of SURPASS-3 include the relatively small number of Asian and Black” patients enrolled, “and an open-label design that carries a risk for bias” when tallying the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects, which the trial recorded based on self-reports by enrolled patients.

A better design would use validated questionnaires geared to discerning gastrointestinal symptoms like the ones used in trials involving patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, wrote Dr. Rayner, a professor of gastroenterology at the University of Adelaide, and Dr. Horowitz, a professor at the same institution and also director of the endocrine and metabolic unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital.

This approach would “allow for more robust evaluation of whether gastrointestinal symptoms are associated with increased weight loss,” they proposed, a possible partial explanation for the weight loss of some patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Additional outstanding questions about tirzepatide include the contribution resulting from the drug’s stimulation of the GIP receptor, as well as the role of GLP-1 receptor stimulation by tirzepatide in slowing gastric emptying. And they also cite the still-unreported effects of tirzepatide on cardiovascular events, fatty liver disease, and kidney function, and its longer-term effects with chronic treatment beyond a year.

All five of the recently completed SURPASS trials ran for 40-52 weeks.

Tirzepatide surpasses insulin degludec’s glycemic control

SURPASS-3 enrolled 1,444 patients with type 2 diabetes at 122 sites in 13 countries during 2019. The study’s primary endpoint was mean change in hemoglobin A1c from baseline after 52 weeks on treatment. The results showed that the A1c reduction with tirzepatide treatment significantly exceeded the drop produced by insulin degludec by 0.59%, 0.86%, and 1.04%, respectively, across the three tirzepatide dosages tested in a dose-response fashion, according to the recent publication.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects were gastrointestinal, which decreased with continued treatment, and tirzepatide produced fewer episodes of hypoglycemia, compared with insulin degludec (Tresiba).

In addition to full reports now out from SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3, researchers also recently published full primary results from SURPASS-1. Results from SURPASS-5 appeared in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions in June 2021 but have not yet been published in a full report, and the primary results from SURPASS-4are expected in a report during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

SURPASS-3 and the other trials of tirzepatide were funded by Lilly, the company developing the drug. Dr. Rayner has been an adviser to Allergen and Glyscend, and has received research funding from Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Horowitz has received symposia fees from Lilly, as well as from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

The streak of positive phase 3 trial results for the novel “twincretin” tirzepatide when treating patients with type 2 diabetes continued in a report in The Lancet on results from the SURPASS-3 trial, which compared weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide against daily treatment with insulin degludec in patients inadequately controlled on metformin alone or on metformin plus a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

Despite positive results in SURPASS-3, as well as in four other pivotal trials that are in the process of releasing full results, the safety and efficacy picture of tirzepatide still includes several as-yet unresolved issues, including the true incidence rate of gastrointestinal adverse effects, the role these effects play in weight loss during tirzepatide treatment, and the drug’s effect on important endpoints beyond weight loss and glycemic control such as cardiovascular outcomes and renal function, said two Australian experts who coauthored a comment on the new SURPASS-3 report.

Tirzepatide is called a “twincretin” because the molecule acts as both a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, the drug class that includes semaglutide (Ozempic, Rybelsus, Wegovy) and liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), and also as a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Trial results reported to date suggest that tirzepatide “might be more potent than available GLP-1 receptor agonists,” based on evidence of superior glycemic control it produced relative to semaglutide in results from the SURPASS-2 phase 3 trial reported in August 2021, wrote Christopher K. Rayner, MD, and Michael Horowitz, MD, in their comment.

Uncertainty about gastrointestinal adverse effects

“Limitations of SURPASS-3 include the relatively small number of Asian and Black” patients enrolled, “and an open-label design that carries a risk for bias” when tallying the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects, which the trial recorded based on self-reports by enrolled patients.

A better design would use validated questionnaires geared to discerning gastrointestinal symptoms like the ones used in trials involving patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders, wrote Dr. Rayner, a professor of gastroenterology at the University of Adelaide, and Dr. Horowitz, a professor at the same institution and also director of the endocrine and metabolic unit at Royal Adelaide Hospital.

This approach would “allow for more robust evaluation of whether gastrointestinal symptoms are associated with increased weight loss,” they proposed, a possible partial explanation for the weight loss of some patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Additional outstanding questions about tirzepatide include the contribution resulting from the drug’s stimulation of the GIP receptor, as well as the role of GLP-1 receptor stimulation by tirzepatide in slowing gastric emptying. And they also cite the still-unreported effects of tirzepatide on cardiovascular events, fatty liver disease, and kidney function, and its longer-term effects with chronic treatment beyond a year.

All five of the recently completed SURPASS trials ran for 40-52 weeks.

Tirzepatide surpasses insulin degludec’s glycemic control

SURPASS-3 enrolled 1,444 patients with type 2 diabetes at 122 sites in 13 countries during 2019. The study’s primary endpoint was mean change in hemoglobin A1c from baseline after 52 weeks on treatment. The results showed that the A1c reduction with tirzepatide treatment significantly exceeded the drop produced by insulin degludec by 0.59%, 0.86%, and 1.04%, respectively, across the three tirzepatide dosages tested in a dose-response fashion, according to the recent publication.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse effects were gastrointestinal, which decreased with continued treatment, and tirzepatide produced fewer episodes of hypoglycemia, compared with insulin degludec (Tresiba).

In addition to full reports now out from SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3, researchers also recently published full primary results from SURPASS-1. Results from SURPASS-5 appeared in a poster presented at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions in June 2021 but have not yet been published in a full report, and the primary results from SURPASS-4are expected in a report during the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in September 2021.

SURPASS-3 and the other trials of tirzepatide were funded by Lilly, the company developing the drug. Dr. Rayner has been an adviser to Allergen and Glyscend, and has received research funding from Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Horowitz has received symposia fees from Lilly, as well as from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim.

[email protected]

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

[email protected]

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

[email protected]

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

[email protected]

The longer a person has diabetes, the greater their risk for also developing heart failure, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults followed for a median of close to 23 years.

In a multivariable analysis the rate of incident heart failure increased steadily and significantly as diabetes duration increased. Among the 168 study subjects (2% of the total study group) who had diabetes for at least 15 years, the subsequent incidence of heart failure was nearly threefold higher than among the 4,802 subjects (49%) who never had diabetes or prediabetes, reported Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, and coauthors in an article published in JACC Heart Failure.

People with prediabetes (32% of the study population) had a significant but modest increased rate of incident heart failure that was 16% higher than in control subjects who never developed diabetes. People with diabetes for durations of 0-4.9 years, 5.0-9.9 years, or 10-14.9 years, had steadily increasing relative incident heart failure rates of 29%, 97%, and 210%, respectively, compared with controls, reported Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Similar rates of HFrEF and HFpEF

Among all 1,841 people in the dataset with diabetes for any length of time each additional 5 years of the disorder linked with a significant, relative 17% increase in the rate of incident heart failure. Incidence of heart failure rose even more sharply with added duration among those with a hemoglobin A1c of 7% or greater, compared with those with better glycemic control. And the rate of incident heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) roughly matched the rate of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The study dataset included 9,734 adults enrolled into the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, and during a median follow-up of 22.5 years they had nearly 2,000 episodes of either hospitalization or death secondary to incident heart failure. This included 617 (31%) events involving HFpEF, 495 events (25%) involving HFrEF, and 876 unclassified heart failure events.

The cohort averaged 63 years of age; 58% were women, 23% were Black, and 77% were White (the study design excluded people with other racial and ethnic backgrounds). The study design also excluded people with a history of heart failure or coronary artery disease, as well as those diagnosed with diabetes prior to age 18 resulting in a study group that presumably mostly had type 2 diabetes when diabetes was present. The report provided no data on the specific numbers of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

“It’s not surprising that a longer duration of diabetes is associated with heart failure, but the etiology remains problematic,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “The impact of diabetes on incident heart failure is not well know, particularly duration of diabetes,” although disorders often found in patients with diabetes, such as hypertension and diabetic cardiomyopathy, likely have roles in causing heart failure, he said.
 

Diabetes duration may signal need for an SGLT2 inhibitor

“With emerging novel treatments like the SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors for preventing heart failure hospitalizations and deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes, this is a timely analysis,” Dr. Eckel said in an interview.

“There is no question that with increased duration of type 2 diabetes” the need for an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class increases. Although, because of the proven protection these drugs give against heart failure events and progression of chronic kidney disease, treatment with this drug class should start early in patients with type 2 diabetes, he added.

Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors agreed, citing two important clinical take-aways from their findings:

First, interventions that delay the onset of diabetes may potentially reduce incident heart failure; second, patients with diabetes might benefit from cardioprotective treatments such as SGLT2 inhibitors, the report said.

“Our observations suggest the potential prognostic relevance of diabetes duration in assessing heart failure,” the authors wrote. Integrating diabetes duration into heart failure risk estimation in people with diabetes “could help refine the selection of high-risk individuals who may derive the greatest absolute benefit from aggressive cardioprotective therapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors.”

The analysis also identified several other demographic and clinical factors that influenced the relative effect of diabetes duration. Longer duration was linked with higher rates of incident heart failure in women compared with men, in Blacks compared with Whites, in people younger than 65 compared with older people, in people with an A1c of 7% or higher, and in those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The ARIC study and the analyses run by Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors received no commercial funding. Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

The longer a person has diabetes, the greater their risk for also developing heart failure, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults followed for a median of close to 23 years.

In a multivariable analysis the rate of incident heart failure increased steadily and significantly as diabetes duration increased. Among the 168 study subjects (2% of the total study group) who had diabetes for at least 15 years, the subsequent incidence of heart failure was nearly threefold higher than among the 4,802 subjects (49%) who never had diabetes or prediabetes, reported Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, and coauthors in an article published in JACC Heart Failure.

People with prediabetes (32% of the study population) had a significant but modest increased rate of incident heart failure that was 16% higher than in control subjects who never developed diabetes. People with diabetes for durations of 0-4.9 years, 5.0-9.9 years, or 10-14.9 years, had steadily increasing relative incident heart failure rates of 29%, 97%, and 210%, respectively, compared with controls, reported Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Similar rates of HFrEF and HFpEF

Among all 1,841 people in the dataset with diabetes for any length of time each additional 5 years of the disorder linked with a significant, relative 17% increase in the rate of incident heart failure. Incidence of heart failure rose even more sharply with added duration among those with a hemoglobin A1c of 7% or greater, compared with those with better glycemic control. And the rate of incident heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) roughly matched the rate of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The study dataset included 9,734 adults enrolled into the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, and during a median follow-up of 22.5 years they had nearly 2,000 episodes of either hospitalization or death secondary to incident heart failure. This included 617 (31%) events involving HFpEF, 495 events (25%) involving HFrEF, and 876 unclassified heart failure events.

The cohort averaged 63 years of age; 58% were women, 23% were Black, and 77% were White (the study design excluded people with other racial and ethnic backgrounds). The study design also excluded people with a history of heart failure or coronary artery disease, as well as those diagnosed with diabetes prior to age 18 resulting in a study group that presumably mostly had type 2 diabetes when diabetes was present. The report provided no data on the specific numbers of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

“It’s not surprising that a longer duration of diabetes is associated with heart failure, but the etiology remains problematic,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “The impact of diabetes on incident heart failure is not well know, particularly duration of diabetes,” although disorders often found in patients with diabetes, such as hypertension and diabetic cardiomyopathy, likely have roles in causing heart failure, he said.
 

Diabetes duration may signal need for an SGLT2 inhibitor

“With emerging novel treatments like the SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors for preventing heart failure hospitalizations and deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes, this is a timely analysis,” Dr. Eckel said in an interview.

“There is no question that with increased duration of type 2 diabetes” the need for an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class increases. Although, because of the proven protection these drugs give against heart failure events and progression of chronic kidney disease, treatment with this drug class should start early in patients with type 2 diabetes, he added.

Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors agreed, citing two important clinical take-aways from their findings:

First, interventions that delay the onset of diabetes may potentially reduce incident heart failure; second, patients with diabetes might benefit from cardioprotective treatments such as SGLT2 inhibitors, the report said.

“Our observations suggest the potential prognostic relevance of diabetes duration in assessing heart failure,” the authors wrote. Integrating diabetes duration into heart failure risk estimation in people with diabetes “could help refine the selection of high-risk individuals who may derive the greatest absolute benefit from aggressive cardioprotective therapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors.”

The analysis also identified several other demographic and clinical factors that influenced the relative effect of diabetes duration. Longer duration was linked with higher rates of incident heart failure in women compared with men, in Blacks compared with Whites, in people younger than 65 compared with older people, in people with an A1c of 7% or higher, and in those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The ARIC study and the analyses run by Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors received no commercial funding. Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

The longer a person has diabetes, the greater their risk for also developing heart failure, according to an analysis of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults followed for a median of close to 23 years.

In a multivariable analysis the rate of incident heart failure increased steadily and significantly as diabetes duration increased. Among the 168 study subjects (2% of the total study group) who had diabetes for at least 15 years, the subsequent incidence of heart failure was nearly threefold higher than among the 4,802 subjects (49%) who never had diabetes or prediabetes, reported Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, and coauthors in an article published in JACC Heart Failure.

People with prediabetes (32% of the study population) had a significant but modest increased rate of incident heart failure that was 16% higher than in control subjects who never developed diabetes. People with diabetes for durations of 0-4.9 years, 5.0-9.9 years, or 10-14.9 years, had steadily increasing relative incident heart failure rates of 29%, 97%, and 210%, respectively, compared with controls, reported Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Similar rates of HFrEF and HFpEF

Among all 1,841 people in the dataset with diabetes for any length of time each additional 5 years of the disorder linked with a significant, relative 17% increase in the rate of incident heart failure. Incidence of heart failure rose even more sharply with added duration among those with a hemoglobin A1c of 7% or greater, compared with those with better glycemic control. And the rate of incident heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) roughly matched the rate of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The study dataset included 9,734 adults enrolled into the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, and during a median follow-up of 22.5 years they had nearly 2,000 episodes of either hospitalization or death secondary to incident heart failure. This included 617 (31%) events involving HFpEF, 495 events (25%) involving HFrEF, and 876 unclassified heart failure events.

The cohort averaged 63 years of age; 58% were women, 23% were Black, and 77% were White (the study design excluded people with other racial and ethnic backgrounds). The study design also excluded people with a history of heart failure or coronary artery disease, as well as those diagnosed with diabetes prior to age 18 resulting in a study group that presumably mostly had type 2 diabetes when diabetes was present. The report provided no data on the specific numbers of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

“It’s not surprising that a longer duration of diabetes is associated with heart failure, but the etiology remains problematic,” commented Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “The impact of diabetes on incident heart failure is not well know, particularly duration of diabetes,” although disorders often found in patients with diabetes, such as hypertension and diabetic cardiomyopathy, likely have roles in causing heart failure, he said.
 

Diabetes duration may signal need for an SGLT2 inhibitor

“With emerging novel treatments like the SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors for preventing heart failure hospitalizations and deaths in patients with type 2 diabetes, this is a timely analysis,” Dr. Eckel said in an interview.

“There is no question that with increased duration of type 2 diabetes” the need for an agent from the SGLT2-inhibitor class increases. Although, because of the proven protection these drugs give against heart failure events and progression of chronic kidney disease, treatment with this drug class should start early in patients with type 2 diabetes, he added.

Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors agreed, citing two important clinical take-aways from their findings:

First, interventions that delay the onset of diabetes may potentially reduce incident heart failure; second, patients with diabetes might benefit from cardioprotective treatments such as SGLT2 inhibitors, the report said.

“Our observations suggest the potential prognostic relevance of diabetes duration in assessing heart failure,” the authors wrote. Integrating diabetes duration into heart failure risk estimation in people with diabetes “could help refine the selection of high-risk individuals who may derive the greatest absolute benefit from aggressive cardioprotective therapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors.”

The analysis also identified several other demographic and clinical factors that influenced the relative effect of diabetes duration. Longer duration was linked with higher rates of incident heart failure in women compared with men, in Blacks compared with Whites, in people younger than 65 compared with older people, in people with an A1c of 7% or higher, and in those with a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater.

The ARIC study and the analyses run by Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and his coauthors received no commercial funding. Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui and Dr. Eckel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

A multidisciplinary panel of U.S. experts released a “Call to Action” for improved screening, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on July 26, an effort organized by the American Gastroenterological Association in collaboration with seven other U.S. medical organizations including several endocrinology groups.

The published statement, “Preparing for the NASH Epidemic: A Call to Action,” proposes several urgent steps for the U.S. clinical community to provide better-focused and better-coordinated care for patients at risk for developing or having NAFLD or NASH, particularly among “emerging” at-risk cohorts such as patients with diabetes and obesity. It appears in the journals Gastroenterology, Diabetes Care, Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental, and Obesity.

The statement’s central pitch is that improvements in care won’t be possible unless the several medical specialties that deal with affected or at-risk patients stop working “in separate silos,” and instead create “a collective action plan,” and also organize multidisciplinary teams that “integrate primary care, hepatology, obesity medicine, endocrinology, and diabetology via well-defined care pathways.”

“The overarching goal” is a “unified, international public health response to NAFLD and NASH,” said the statement, which stemmed from a conference held in July 2020 that included representatives from not only the lead gastroenterology group but also the American Diabetes Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Family Physicians, The Obesity Society, and the American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians.

The statement cites sobering prevalence numbers, with estimates that NAFLD exists in more than half the patients with type 2 diabetes, while NASH affects about a third, rates that translate into many millions of affected Americans, given recent estimates that the U.S. prevalence of type 2 diabetes exceeds 30 million people. And the numbers continue to rise along with increases in the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

“It’s an enormously common disease, and there are not enough gastroenterologists, to say nothing of hepatologists, to care for every patient with NAFLD,” said Anna Mae Diehl, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C., who was not involved with the conference nor in writing the statement.

Clinical care pathways coming soon

Another key part of this initiative is development of clinical care pathways that will have “careful explication of each step in screening, diagnosis, and treatment,” and will be designed to inform the practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) as well as clinicians from the various specialties that deal with these patients.

The clinical care pathways are on track to come out later in 2021, said Fasiha Kanwal, MD, a professor and chief of gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and lead author on the Call to Action document.

“The Pathways will include practical recommendations about whom to screen and when to refer, and the criteria primary care physicians can use for diagnosis and risk stratification,” Dr. Kanwal said in an interview. “Patients can benefit from a standardized approach.”

The new document also includes results from a recent survey about NAFLD and NASH management completed by 751 U.S. physicians, including 401 (53%) primary care physicians, 175 gastroenterologists, (23%) and 175 endocrinologists (23%; percentages total 99% because of rounding).

The results showed “significant gaps in knowledge about whom to screen and how to diagnose and treat patients at high risk for NASH,” concluded the statement’s authors. Barely more than a third of the respondents knew that almost all patients with severe obesity likely have NAFLD, and fewer than half the endocrinologists and the primary care physicians appreciated that NAFLD is very common among patients with type 2 diabetes.
 

‘Understanding of NAFLD is not there’

“I applaud this effort that calls attention to an emerging public health problem. This paper and survey are great ideas. The findings are not surprising, but they’re important,” said Dr. Diehl said in an interview. “Much more needs to be done” including changes in social behavior and government policies.

“The public’s understanding of NAFLD is not there,” and many physicians also have an incomplete understanding of NAFLD and more serious stages of metabolic liver disease. “Physicians know that patients with obesity are at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and stroke, but they may not always be aware that these patients can also have cirrhosis,” noted Dr. Diehl, who published in 2019 a call to action for NAFLD of her own with some associates.

“My referrals are fueled by primary care physicians who recognize patients with significant liver disease. It would be great to outline recommended practice; I have no doubt that providers will embrace this,” as well as the broader concept of multidisciplinary teams, another focus of the statement. Dr. Diehl cited the “Cancer Center model,” where an oncologist takes primary responsibility for caring for a cancer patient while coordinating care with other specialists, an approach facilitated by EMRs that allow seamless data and chart sharing and something that many health systems have either already adopted or are moving toward.

She said the NASH Call to Action may help catalyze broader application of this model to many more patients with NAFLD or NASH, and noted that some U.S. centers already use this approach – including Dr. Diehl’s program at Duke – which brings together her gastroenterology colleagues with cardiologists, radiologists, endocrinologists, and bariatric surgeons. But she noted that for most patients with metabolic liver disease, the hub clinician needs to be a PCP, especially for patients with earlier-stage disease, because the number of affected patients is so huge.

“Key steps toward establishing such teams include establishing protocols for risk stratification and referral, definition of roles and responsibilities, and buy-in from institutions and payers. Clearly a lot of work needs to occur to get to these multidisciplinary teams,” said Dr. Kanwal.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, professor and deputy director of the Texas Diabetes Institute at UT Health San Antonio, who was not involved with the conference or statement, had a different take on what the future of NASH and NAFLD care may look like.

“Endocrinologists, hepatologists, and obesity experts will work within their individual specialties to diagnose and manage NASH,” he said in an interview. But he acknowledged that “an integrated effort by specialists would be important” to help “primary care physicians who are less familiar with the disease.”
 

Controversy over pioglitazone?

Dr. DeFronzo endorsed development of clinical care pathways as “important,” but also as a potential source of “controversy, especially with respect to treatment.”

The Call to Action statement cites lifestyle-based therapies, such as an appropriate diet; regular, moderate exercise; and elimination when possible of obesogenic medications as cornerstone interventions for patients with NAFLD or early-stage NASH, interventions that can be prescribed by PCPs. For patients with NASH and stage 2 or worse fibrosis, the statement endorses liver-directed pharmacotherapy. While noting that no agents currently carry a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for treating NASH, the statement cites evidence that 800 IU/day of vitamin E improves steatosis in patients with NASH but not type 2 diabetes.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, the statement notes that results from five randomized trials indicated that pioglitazone could reverse steatohepatitis, findings that led to its recommendation in guidelines from a modest circle of medical groups, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. However, the 2021 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association gives these agents limited endorsement, saying: “Pioglitazone, vitamin E treatment, and liraglutide treatment of biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis have each been shown to improve liver histology, but effects on longer-term clinical outcomes are not known.”

“The strongest evidence by far is for pioglitazone for treating NAFLD and NASH,” said Dr. DeFronzo, a vocal proponent of the drug for this indication. But he added that “hepatologists don’t feel comfortable with drugs from the thiazolidinedione class,” which includes pioglitazone.

“We don’t yet know how to optimally configure the health system for NAFLD and NASH to make it more efficient and helpful to patients, but models exist, and the approach is evolving,” said Dr. Diehl.

Dr. Diehl and Dr. Kanwal had no relevant disclosures. Dr. DeFronzo has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk, has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, and Janssen, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Janssen and Merck.

[email protected]

A multidisciplinary panel of U.S. experts released a “Call to Action” for improved screening, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on July 26, an effort organized by the American Gastroenterological Association in collaboration with seven other U.S. medical organizations including several endocrinology groups.

The published statement, “Preparing for the NASH Epidemic: A Call to Action,” proposes several urgent steps for the U.S. clinical community to provide better-focused and better-coordinated care for patients at risk for developing or having NAFLD or NASH, particularly among “emerging” at-risk cohorts such as patients with diabetes and obesity. It appears in the journals Gastroenterology, Diabetes Care, Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental, and Obesity.

The statement’s central pitch is that improvements in care won’t be possible unless the several medical specialties that deal with affected or at-risk patients stop working “in separate silos,” and instead create “a collective action plan,” and also organize multidisciplinary teams that “integrate primary care, hepatology, obesity medicine, endocrinology, and diabetology via well-defined care pathways.”

“The overarching goal” is a “unified, international public health response to NAFLD and NASH,” said the statement, which stemmed from a conference held in July 2020 that included representatives from not only the lead gastroenterology group but also the American Diabetes Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Family Physicians, The Obesity Society, and the American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians.

The statement cites sobering prevalence numbers, with estimates that NAFLD exists in more than half the patients with type 2 diabetes, while NASH affects about a third, rates that translate into many millions of affected Americans, given recent estimates that the U.S. prevalence of type 2 diabetes exceeds 30 million people. And the numbers continue to rise along with increases in the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

“It’s an enormously common disease, and there are not enough gastroenterologists, to say nothing of hepatologists, to care for every patient with NAFLD,” said Anna Mae Diehl, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C., who was not involved with the conference nor in writing the statement.

Clinical care pathways coming soon

Another key part of this initiative is development of clinical care pathways that will have “careful explication of each step in screening, diagnosis, and treatment,” and will be designed to inform the practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) as well as clinicians from the various specialties that deal with these patients.

The clinical care pathways are on track to come out later in 2021, said Fasiha Kanwal, MD, a professor and chief of gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and lead author on the Call to Action document.

“The Pathways will include practical recommendations about whom to screen and when to refer, and the criteria primary care physicians can use for diagnosis and risk stratification,” Dr. Kanwal said in an interview. “Patients can benefit from a standardized approach.”

The new document also includes results from a recent survey about NAFLD and NASH management completed by 751 U.S. physicians, including 401 (53%) primary care physicians, 175 gastroenterologists, (23%) and 175 endocrinologists (23%; percentages total 99% because of rounding).

The results showed “significant gaps in knowledge about whom to screen and how to diagnose and treat patients at high risk for NASH,” concluded the statement’s authors. Barely more than a third of the respondents knew that almost all patients with severe obesity likely have NAFLD, and fewer than half the endocrinologists and the primary care physicians appreciated that NAFLD is very common among patients with type 2 diabetes.
 

‘Understanding of NAFLD is not there’

“I applaud this effort that calls attention to an emerging public health problem. This paper and survey are great ideas. The findings are not surprising, but they’re important,” said Dr. Diehl said in an interview. “Much more needs to be done” including changes in social behavior and government policies.

“The public’s understanding of NAFLD is not there,” and many physicians also have an incomplete understanding of NAFLD and more serious stages of metabolic liver disease. “Physicians know that patients with obesity are at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and stroke, but they may not always be aware that these patients can also have cirrhosis,” noted Dr. Diehl, who published in 2019 a call to action for NAFLD of her own with some associates.

“My referrals are fueled by primary care physicians who recognize patients with significant liver disease. It would be great to outline recommended practice; I have no doubt that providers will embrace this,” as well as the broader concept of multidisciplinary teams, another focus of the statement. Dr. Diehl cited the “Cancer Center model,” where an oncologist takes primary responsibility for caring for a cancer patient while coordinating care with other specialists, an approach facilitated by EMRs that allow seamless data and chart sharing and something that many health systems have either already adopted or are moving toward.

She said the NASH Call to Action may help catalyze broader application of this model to many more patients with NAFLD or NASH, and noted that some U.S. centers already use this approach – including Dr. Diehl’s program at Duke – which brings together her gastroenterology colleagues with cardiologists, radiologists, endocrinologists, and bariatric surgeons. But she noted that for most patients with metabolic liver disease, the hub clinician needs to be a PCP, especially for patients with earlier-stage disease, because the number of affected patients is so huge.

“Key steps toward establishing such teams include establishing protocols for risk stratification and referral, definition of roles and responsibilities, and buy-in from institutions and payers. Clearly a lot of work needs to occur to get to these multidisciplinary teams,” said Dr. Kanwal.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, professor and deputy director of the Texas Diabetes Institute at UT Health San Antonio, who was not involved with the conference or statement, had a different take on what the future of NASH and NAFLD care may look like.

“Endocrinologists, hepatologists, and obesity experts will work within their individual specialties to diagnose and manage NASH,” he said in an interview. But he acknowledged that “an integrated effort by specialists would be important” to help “primary care physicians who are less familiar with the disease.”
 

Controversy over pioglitazone?

Dr. DeFronzo endorsed development of clinical care pathways as “important,” but also as a potential source of “controversy, especially with respect to treatment.”

The Call to Action statement cites lifestyle-based therapies, such as an appropriate diet; regular, moderate exercise; and elimination when possible of obesogenic medications as cornerstone interventions for patients with NAFLD or early-stage NASH, interventions that can be prescribed by PCPs. For patients with NASH and stage 2 or worse fibrosis, the statement endorses liver-directed pharmacotherapy. While noting that no agents currently carry a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for treating NASH, the statement cites evidence that 800 IU/day of vitamin E improves steatosis in patients with NASH but not type 2 diabetes.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, the statement notes that results from five randomized trials indicated that pioglitazone could reverse steatohepatitis, findings that led to its recommendation in guidelines from a modest circle of medical groups, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. However, the 2021 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association gives these agents limited endorsement, saying: “Pioglitazone, vitamin E treatment, and liraglutide treatment of biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis have each been shown to improve liver histology, but effects on longer-term clinical outcomes are not known.”

“The strongest evidence by far is for pioglitazone for treating NAFLD and NASH,” said Dr. DeFronzo, a vocal proponent of the drug for this indication. But he added that “hepatologists don’t feel comfortable with drugs from the thiazolidinedione class,” which includes pioglitazone.

“We don’t yet know how to optimally configure the health system for NAFLD and NASH to make it more efficient and helpful to patients, but models exist, and the approach is evolving,” said Dr. Diehl.

Dr. Diehl and Dr. Kanwal had no relevant disclosures. Dr. DeFronzo has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk, has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, and Janssen, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Janssen and Merck.

[email protected]

A multidisciplinary panel of U.S. experts released a “Call to Action” for improved screening, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on July 26, an effort organized by the American Gastroenterological Association in collaboration with seven other U.S. medical organizations including several endocrinology groups.

The published statement, “Preparing for the NASH Epidemic: A Call to Action,” proposes several urgent steps for the U.S. clinical community to provide better-focused and better-coordinated care for patients at risk for developing or having NAFLD or NASH, particularly among “emerging” at-risk cohorts such as patients with diabetes and obesity. It appears in the journals Gastroenterology, Diabetes Care, Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental, and Obesity.

The statement’s central pitch is that improvements in care won’t be possible unless the several medical specialties that deal with affected or at-risk patients stop working “in separate silos,” and instead create “a collective action plan,” and also organize multidisciplinary teams that “integrate primary care, hepatology, obesity medicine, endocrinology, and diabetology via well-defined care pathways.”

“The overarching goal” is a “unified, international public health response to NAFLD and NASH,” said the statement, which stemmed from a conference held in July 2020 that included representatives from not only the lead gastroenterology group but also the American Diabetes Association, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Family Physicians, The Obesity Society, and the American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians.

The statement cites sobering prevalence numbers, with estimates that NAFLD exists in more than half the patients with type 2 diabetes, while NASH affects about a third, rates that translate into many millions of affected Americans, given recent estimates that the U.S. prevalence of type 2 diabetes exceeds 30 million people. And the numbers continue to rise along with increases in the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

“It’s an enormously common disease, and there are not enough gastroenterologists, to say nothing of hepatologists, to care for every patient with NAFLD,” said Anna Mae Diehl, MD, a gastroenterologist and professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C., who was not involved with the conference nor in writing the statement.

Clinical care pathways coming soon

Another key part of this initiative is development of clinical care pathways that will have “careful explication of each step in screening, diagnosis, and treatment,” and will be designed to inform the practice of primary care physicians (PCPs) as well as clinicians from the various specialties that deal with these patients.

The clinical care pathways are on track to come out later in 2021, said Fasiha Kanwal, MD, a professor and chief of gastroenterology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and lead author on the Call to Action document.

“The Pathways will include practical recommendations about whom to screen and when to refer, and the criteria primary care physicians can use for diagnosis and risk stratification,” Dr. Kanwal said in an interview. “Patients can benefit from a standardized approach.”

The new document also includes results from a recent survey about NAFLD and NASH management completed by 751 U.S. physicians, including 401 (53%) primary care physicians, 175 gastroenterologists, (23%) and 175 endocrinologists (23%; percentages total 99% because of rounding).

The results showed “significant gaps in knowledge about whom to screen and how to diagnose and treat patients at high risk for NASH,” concluded the statement’s authors. Barely more than a third of the respondents knew that almost all patients with severe obesity likely have NAFLD, and fewer than half the endocrinologists and the primary care physicians appreciated that NAFLD is very common among patients with type 2 diabetes.
 

‘Understanding of NAFLD is not there’

“I applaud this effort that calls attention to an emerging public health problem. This paper and survey are great ideas. The findings are not surprising, but they’re important,” said Dr. Diehl said in an interview. “Much more needs to be done” including changes in social behavior and government policies.

“The public’s understanding of NAFLD is not there,” and many physicians also have an incomplete understanding of NAFLD and more serious stages of metabolic liver disease. “Physicians know that patients with obesity are at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and stroke, but they may not always be aware that these patients can also have cirrhosis,” noted Dr. Diehl, who published in 2019 a call to action for NAFLD of her own with some associates.

“My referrals are fueled by primary care physicians who recognize patients with significant liver disease. It would be great to outline recommended practice; I have no doubt that providers will embrace this,” as well as the broader concept of multidisciplinary teams, another focus of the statement. Dr. Diehl cited the “Cancer Center model,” where an oncologist takes primary responsibility for caring for a cancer patient while coordinating care with other specialists, an approach facilitated by EMRs that allow seamless data and chart sharing and something that many health systems have either already adopted or are moving toward.

She said the NASH Call to Action may help catalyze broader application of this model to many more patients with NAFLD or NASH, and noted that some U.S. centers already use this approach – including Dr. Diehl’s program at Duke – which brings together her gastroenterology colleagues with cardiologists, radiologists, endocrinologists, and bariatric surgeons. But she noted that for most patients with metabolic liver disease, the hub clinician needs to be a PCP, especially for patients with earlier-stage disease, because the number of affected patients is so huge.

“Key steps toward establishing such teams include establishing protocols for risk stratification and referral, definition of roles and responsibilities, and buy-in from institutions and payers. Clearly a lot of work needs to occur to get to these multidisciplinary teams,” said Dr. Kanwal.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, professor and deputy director of the Texas Diabetes Institute at UT Health San Antonio, who was not involved with the conference or statement, had a different take on what the future of NASH and NAFLD care may look like.

“Endocrinologists, hepatologists, and obesity experts will work within their individual specialties to diagnose and manage NASH,” he said in an interview. But he acknowledged that “an integrated effort by specialists would be important” to help “primary care physicians who are less familiar with the disease.”
 

Controversy over pioglitazone?

Dr. DeFronzo endorsed development of clinical care pathways as “important,” but also as a potential source of “controversy, especially with respect to treatment.”

The Call to Action statement cites lifestyle-based therapies, such as an appropriate diet; regular, moderate exercise; and elimination when possible of obesogenic medications as cornerstone interventions for patients with NAFLD or early-stage NASH, interventions that can be prescribed by PCPs. For patients with NASH and stage 2 or worse fibrosis, the statement endorses liver-directed pharmacotherapy. While noting that no agents currently carry a Food and Drug Administration–approved indication for treating NASH, the statement cites evidence that 800 IU/day of vitamin E improves steatosis in patients with NASH but not type 2 diabetes.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, the statement notes that results from five randomized trials indicated that pioglitazone could reverse steatohepatitis, findings that led to its recommendation in guidelines from a modest circle of medical groups, including the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. However, the 2021 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association gives these agents limited endorsement, saying: “Pioglitazone, vitamin E treatment, and liraglutide treatment of biopsy-proven nonalcoholic steatohepatitis have each been shown to improve liver histology, but effects on longer-term clinical outcomes are not known.”

“The strongest evidence by far is for pioglitazone for treating NAFLD and NASH,” said Dr. DeFronzo, a vocal proponent of the drug for this indication. But he added that “hepatologists don’t feel comfortable with drugs from the thiazolidinedione class,” which includes pioglitazone.

“We don’t yet know how to optimally configure the health system for NAFLD and NASH to make it more efficient and helpful to patients, but models exist, and the approach is evolving,” said Dr. Diehl.

Dr. Diehl and Dr. Kanwal had no relevant disclosures. Dr. DeFronzo has been a speaker on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk, has been an adviser to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Intarcia, and Janssen, and has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Janssen and Merck.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic jump-started a significant role for telemedicine in the routine follow-up of U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, based on insurance claims records for more than 2.7 million American adults during 2019 and 2020.

During 2019, 0.3% of 1,357,029 adults with type 2 diabetes in a U.S. claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, had one or more telemedicine visits. During 2020, this jumped to 29% of a similar group of U.S. adults once the pandemic kicked in, a nearly 100-fold increase, Sadiq Y. Patel, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a research letter published July 6, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The data show that telemedicine visits didn’t seem to negatively impact care, with hemoglobin A1c levels and medication fills remaining constant across the year.

But Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said these results, while reassuring, seem “quite surprising” relative to anecdotal reports from colleagues around the United States.

It’s possible they may only apply to the specific patients included in this study – which was limited to those with either commercial or Medicare Advantage health insurance – he noted in an interview.
 

Diabetes well-suited to telemedicine

Dr. Patel, of the department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors said the information from their study showed “no evidence of a negative association with medication fills or glycemic control” among these patients during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year 2019.

During the first 48 weeks in 2020, A1c levels averaged 7.16% among patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with an average of 7.14% for patients with type 2 diabetes during the first 48 weeks of 2019. Fill rates for prescription medications were 64% during 2020 and 62% during 2019.

A1c levels and medication fill rates “are important markers of the quality of diabetes care, but obviously not the only important things,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, corresponding author for the study and a researcher in the same department as Dr. Patel.

“Limited to the metrics we looked at and in this population we did not see any substantial negative impact of the pandemic on the care for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

“The pandemic catalyzed a tremendous shift to telemedicine among patients with diabetes. Because it is a chronic illness that requires frequent check-ins, diabetes is particularly well suited to using telemedicine,” he added.
 

Telemedicine not a complete replacement for in-patient visits

Dr. Gabbay agreed that “providers and patients have found telemedicine to be a helpful tool for managing patients with diabetes.”

But “most people do not think of this as a complete replacement for in-person visits, and most [U.S.] institutions have started to have more in-person visits. It’s probably about 50/50 at this point,” he said in an interview.

“It represents an impressive effort by the health care community to pivot toward telehealth to ensure that patients with diabetes continue to get care.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Gabbay added that “despite the success of telemedicine many patients still prefer to see their providers in person. I have a number of patients who were overjoyed to come in and be seen in person even when I offered telemedicine as an alternative. There is a relationship and trust piece that is more profound in person.”

And he cautioned that, although A1c “is a helpful measure, it may not fully demonstrate the percentage of patients at high risk.”

The data in the study by Dr. Patel and coauthors showing a steady level of medication refills during the pandemic “is encouraging,” he said, speculating that “people may have had more time [during the pandemic] to focus on medication adherence.”
 

More evidence of telemedicine’s leap

Other U.S. sites that follow patients with type 2 diabetes have recently reported similar findings, albeit on a much more localized level.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., telemedicine consultations for patients with diabetes or other endocrinology disorders spurted from essentially none prior to March 2020 to a peak of nearly 700 visits/week in early May 2020, and then maintained a rate of roughly 500 telemedicine consultations weekly through the end of 2020, said Michelle L. Griffth, MD, during a talk at the 2021 annual ADA scientific sessions.

“We’ve made telehealth a permanent part of our practice,” said Dr. Griffith, medical director of telehealth ambulatory services at Vanderbilt. “We can use this boom in telehealth as a catalyst for diabetes-practice evolution,” she suggested.

It was a similar story at Scripps Health in southern California. During March and April 2020, video telemedicine consultations jumped from a prior rate of about 60/month to about 13,000/week, and then settled back to a monthly rate of about 25,000-30,000 during the balance of 2020, said Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, an endocrinologist and vice president of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute in La Jolla, Calif. (These numbers include all telehealth consultations for patients at Scripps, not just patients with diabetes.)

“COVID sped up the process of integrating digital technology into health care,” concluded Dr. Philis-Tsimikas. A big factor driving this transition was the decision of many insurers to reimburse for telemedicine visits, something not done prepandemic.

The study received no commercial support. Dr. Patel, Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Griffith, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, and Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic jump-started a significant role for telemedicine in the routine follow-up of U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, based on insurance claims records for more than 2.7 million American adults during 2019 and 2020.

During 2019, 0.3% of 1,357,029 adults with type 2 diabetes in a U.S. claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, had one or more telemedicine visits. During 2020, this jumped to 29% of a similar group of U.S. adults once the pandemic kicked in, a nearly 100-fold increase, Sadiq Y. Patel, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a research letter published July 6, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The data show that telemedicine visits didn’t seem to negatively impact care, with hemoglobin A1c levels and medication fills remaining constant across the year.

But Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said these results, while reassuring, seem “quite surprising” relative to anecdotal reports from colleagues around the United States.

It’s possible they may only apply to the specific patients included in this study – which was limited to those with either commercial or Medicare Advantage health insurance – he noted in an interview.
 

Diabetes well-suited to telemedicine

Dr. Patel, of the department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors said the information from their study showed “no evidence of a negative association with medication fills or glycemic control” among these patients during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year 2019.

During the first 48 weeks in 2020, A1c levels averaged 7.16% among patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with an average of 7.14% for patients with type 2 diabetes during the first 48 weeks of 2019. Fill rates for prescription medications were 64% during 2020 and 62% during 2019.

A1c levels and medication fill rates “are important markers of the quality of diabetes care, but obviously not the only important things,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, corresponding author for the study and a researcher in the same department as Dr. Patel.

“Limited to the metrics we looked at and in this population we did not see any substantial negative impact of the pandemic on the care for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

“The pandemic catalyzed a tremendous shift to telemedicine among patients with diabetes. Because it is a chronic illness that requires frequent check-ins, diabetes is particularly well suited to using telemedicine,” he added.
 

Telemedicine not a complete replacement for in-patient visits

Dr. Gabbay agreed that “providers and patients have found telemedicine to be a helpful tool for managing patients with diabetes.”

But “most people do not think of this as a complete replacement for in-person visits, and most [U.S.] institutions have started to have more in-person visits. It’s probably about 50/50 at this point,” he said in an interview.

“It represents an impressive effort by the health care community to pivot toward telehealth to ensure that patients with diabetes continue to get care.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Gabbay added that “despite the success of telemedicine many patients still prefer to see their providers in person. I have a number of patients who were overjoyed to come in and be seen in person even when I offered telemedicine as an alternative. There is a relationship and trust piece that is more profound in person.”

And he cautioned that, although A1c “is a helpful measure, it may not fully demonstrate the percentage of patients at high risk.”

The data in the study by Dr. Patel and coauthors showing a steady level of medication refills during the pandemic “is encouraging,” he said, speculating that “people may have had more time [during the pandemic] to focus on medication adherence.”
 

More evidence of telemedicine’s leap

Other U.S. sites that follow patients with type 2 diabetes have recently reported similar findings, albeit on a much more localized level.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., telemedicine consultations for patients with diabetes or other endocrinology disorders spurted from essentially none prior to March 2020 to a peak of nearly 700 visits/week in early May 2020, and then maintained a rate of roughly 500 telemedicine consultations weekly through the end of 2020, said Michelle L. Griffth, MD, during a talk at the 2021 annual ADA scientific sessions.

“We’ve made telehealth a permanent part of our practice,” said Dr. Griffith, medical director of telehealth ambulatory services at Vanderbilt. “We can use this boom in telehealth as a catalyst for diabetes-practice evolution,” she suggested.

It was a similar story at Scripps Health in southern California. During March and April 2020, video telemedicine consultations jumped from a prior rate of about 60/month to about 13,000/week, and then settled back to a monthly rate of about 25,000-30,000 during the balance of 2020, said Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, an endocrinologist and vice president of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute in La Jolla, Calif. (These numbers include all telehealth consultations for patients at Scripps, not just patients with diabetes.)

“COVID sped up the process of integrating digital technology into health care,” concluded Dr. Philis-Tsimikas. A big factor driving this transition was the decision of many insurers to reimburse for telemedicine visits, something not done prepandemic.

The study received no commercial support. Dr. Patel, Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Griffith, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, and Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic jump-started a significant role for telemedicine in the routine follow-up of U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, based on insurance claims records for more than 2.7 million American adults during 2019 and 2020.

During 2019, 0.3% of 1,357,029 adults with type 2 diabetes in a U.S. claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, had one or more telemedicine visits. During 2020, this jumped to 29% of a similar group of U.S. adults once the pandemic kicked in, a nearly 100-fold increase, Sadiq Y. Patel, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a research letter published July 6, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The data show that telemedicine visits didn’t seem to negatively impact care, with hemoglobin A1c levels and medication fills remaining constant across the year.

But Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer for the American Diabetes Association, said these results, while reassuring, seem “quite surprising” relative to anecdotal reports from colleagues around the United States.

It’s possible they may only apply to the specific patients included in this study – which was limited to those with either commercial or Medicare Advantage health insurance – he noted in an interview.
 

Diabetes well-suited to telemedicine

Dr. Patel, of the department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthors said the information from their study showed “no evidence of a negative association with medication fills or glycemic control” among these patients during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the prepandemic year 2019.

During the first 48 weeks in 2020, A1c levels averaged 7.16% among patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with an average of 7.14% for patients with type 2 diabetes during the first 48 weeks of 2019. Fill rates for prescription medications were 64% during 2020 and 62% during 2019.

A1c levels and medication fill rates “are important markers of the quality of diabetes care, but obviously not the only important things,” said Ateev Mehrotra, MD, corresponding author for the study and a researcher in the same department as Dr. Patel.

“Limited to the metrics we looked at and in this population we did not see any substantial negative impact of the pandemic on the care for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Mehrotra said in an interview.

“The pandemic catalyzed a tremendous shift to telemedicine among patients with diabetes. Because it is a chronic illness that requires frequent check-ins, diabetes is particularly well suited to using telemedicine,” he added.
 

Telemedicine not a complete replacement for in-patient visits

Dr. Gabbay agreed that “providers and patients have found telemedicine to be a helpful tool for managing patients with diabetes.”

But “most people do not think of this as a complete replacement for in-person visits, and most [U.S.] institutions have started to have more in-person visits. It’s probably about 50/50 at this point,” he said in an interview.

“It represents an impressive effort by the health care community to pivot toward telehealth to ensure that patients with diabetes continue to get care.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Gabbay added that “despite the success of telemedicine many patients still prefer to see their providers in person. I have a number of patients who were overjoyed to come in and be seen in person even when I offered telemedicine as an alternative. There is a relationship and trust piece that is more profound in person.”

And he cautioned that, although A1c “is a helpful measure, it may not fully demonstrate the percentage of patients at high risk.”

The data in the study by Dr. Patel and coauthors showing a steady level of medication refills during the pandemic “is encouraging,” he said, speculating that “people may have had more time [during the pandemic] to focus on medication adherence.”
 

More evidence of telemedicine’s leap

Other U.S. sites that follow patients with type 2 diabetes have recently reported similar findings, albeit on a much more localized level.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., telemedicine consultations for patients with diabetes or other endocrinology disorders spurted from essentially none prior to March 2020 to a peak of nearly 700 visits/week in early May 2020, and then maintained a rate of roughly 500 telemedicine consultations weekly through the end of 2020, said Michelle L. Griffth, MD, during a talk at the 2021 annual ADA scientific sessions.

“We’ve made telehealth a permanent part of our practice,” said Dr. Griffith, medical director of telehealth ambulatory services at Vanderbilt. “We can use this boom in telehealth as a catalyst for diabetes-practice evolution,” she suggested.

It was a similar story at Scripps Health in southern California. During March and April 2020, video telemedicine consultations jumped from a prior rate of about 60/month to about 13,000/week, and then settled back to a monthly rate of about 25,000-30,000 during the balance of 2020, said Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD, an endocrinologist and vice president of the Scripps Whittier Diabetes Institute in La Jolla, Calif. (These numbers include all telehealth consultations for patients at Scripps, not just patients with diabetes.)

“COVID sped up the process of integrating digital technology into health care,” concluded Dr. Philis-Tsimikas. A big factor driving this transition was the decision of many insurers to reimburse for telemedicine visits, something not done prepandemic.

The study received no commercial support. Dr. Patel, Dr. Mehrotra, Dr. Griffith, Dr. Philis-Tsimikas, and Dr. Gabbay reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Liraglutide and insulin glargine outperformed glimepiride and sitagliptin as single add-on agents to metformin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicenter U.S. trial that randomized just over 5,000 patients.

The GRADE trial ran for roughly 5 years at 36 U.S. centers and was designed to answer the question of which is the best second-line agent for patients with type 2 diabetes already taking metformin. Results were reported at the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 81st Scientific Sessions. 

The comparison included two oral medications – the sulfonylurea glimepiride and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin – and two injectable medications – insulin glargine and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist liraglutide.

The primary endpoint was change in A1c level and overall glycemic control. Secondary endpoints include changes in weight, as well as cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, and other complications.

For the primary endpoint – keeping A1c levels below 7% – liraglutide and the basal insulin glargine both did this best and were almost equivalent.

During the average 5-year follow-up, the rates of patients progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7% or higher were 67% among patients randomized to insulin glargine, 68% maintained on liraglutide, 72% taking the sulfonylurea glimepiride, and 77% taking sitagliptin, reported John M. Lachin, ScD, a biostatistician at George Washington University, Washington.
 

Too soon for take-aways, or are the data already obsolete?

“The ultimate goal of GRADE is to help clinicians select the therapies that will work best for individual patients, as diabetes care is not a one-size-fits all approach,” noted David M. Nathan, MD, chair of the study and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in an ADA press release.

Dr. Nathan, as well as several other members of the GRADE trial steering committee who presented results, repeatedly cautioned that the findings were preliminary because they represent 90% of outcomes, with the remaining 10% still to be adjudicated.

“We undertook this study to fill a gap in the guidelines,” said investigator Deborah J. Wexler, MD, clinical director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “I would like to have all the results in ... before I comment on how the guidelines should change.”

“The metabolic data are solid, but the cardiovascular disease data are preliminary,” warned Dr. Nathan.

But that didn’t stop some from drawing their own conclusions, with Julio Rosenstock, MD, who comoderated the session but was not involved with the study, giving his own opinion.

“A pleasant surprise was the performance of basal insulin,” he said, calling the findings “a vindication” for basal insulin as a treatment for the types of patients with type 2 diabetes that enrolled in the study.

Steven E. Kahn, MB, ChB, another GRADE co-investigator agreed. “Based on the results, guidelines should say that you add insulin early on,” he observed.

A generic basal insulin and a generic sulfonylurea are both reasonable options, after metformin, for patients with limited resources, added Dr. Kahn, an endocrinologist and professor at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Dr. Rosenstock, director of the Dallas Diabetes Research Center, also saw the results as an indictment of agents in the DDP-4 inhibitor class, such as sitagliptin.

The DPP-4 inhibitors generate $9 billion a year, he said, wondering whether it “is justifiable to put them on the same level as other agents?”

Meanwhile the assigned discussant, David R. Matthews, DPhil, a professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford, England – while congratulating the investigators on certain aspects of the study – said it ultimately fell short because it didn’t include an arm with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“We should kick the authors for missing out on SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Matthews said. “The omission means that the GRADE data are already obsolescent.”

In reply, Dr. Nathan admitted “we feel bad we did not include” an SGLT2 inhibitor, but he vigorously defended the dilemma faced by the trial’s organizers.

Oral SGLT2 inhibitors were not “well-established drugs” for type 2 diabetes when enrollment launched in 2013, and the researchers were wary of including what could turn out to be a problematic agent soon after controversy over the safety of agents in the thiazolidinedione drug class (such as rosiglitazone), he explained.

They also realized that adding a fifth drug to the study would necessitate doubling enrollment size, which would have undercut the funding plans already in place.

Dr. Matthews also derided GRADE as being underpowered to adequately address the impact of the tested agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and hospitalizations for heart failure and too U.S.-centric to be generalizable elsewhere.
 

A study with lots of data

The roughly 5,000 patients enrolled in GRADE were an average age of 57 years old, 64% were men, 66% were White, and 20% were Black. They had had type 2 diabetes, on average, for 4.2 years. Mean body mass index at entry was about 34 kg/m², average A1c was 7.5%, and average estimated glomerular filtration rate was 95 mL/min/1.73m². The trial included a 6-12 week run-in period during which background metformin treatment was optimized and led to average A1c levels less than 7%.

Patients were then randomized to one of the four agents as add-on treatment.

Both liraglutide and insulin glargine performed well on many of the numerous metrics in the data-rich trial, largely funded by two branches of the National Institutes of Health, with commercial involvement limited to free supplies of the study drugs.

The secondary metabolic outcome, of disease progressing to a confirmed A1c of 7.5%, was reached by 39% of patients taking insulin glargine, significantly lower than the rate of 46% among patients taking liraglutide, and that rate, in turn, was significantly below the 50% rate among patients taking glimepiride and the 55% rate of those taking sitagliptin.

Mean doses of the second-line agents after 4 years of treatment were 38.3 units/day for glargine, 3.5 mg/day for glimepiride, 1.3 mg/day for subcutaneous liraglutide, and 82.9 mg/day for sitagliptin. 

A trio of cardiovascular outcomes showed one significant benefit of liraglutide over the other three drugs for the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, which included not only major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), but also several other event types, including heart failure requiring hospitalization, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, revascularization or any arterial repairs, stent thrombosis, or transient ischemic attack.

For the endpoint of any cardiovascular event, the rate was 5.8% for patients taking liraglutide, significantly less than the rate of 7.6% of those taking insulin glargine, 8.0% for glimepiride, and 8.6% for sitagliptin, reported John B. Buse, MD, PhD, professor, chief of endocrinology, and director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For each of the other two main cardiovascular endpoints – MACE and hospitalization for heart failure – liraglutide had a numeric advantage over the other three drugs but failed to reach significance. 

Patients taking liraglutide also had a smaller but not significantly different point estimate for all-cause death, at 2.1%, compared with 3.1%-3.4% in the other three groups.

And, Dr. Nathan emphasized, the cardiovascular disease data are still considered preliminary.

Liraglutide scored a pair of additional outcome victories. Its use resulted in a significantly lower rate of patients who progressed during follow-up to either needing antihypertensive medications or having their blood pressure rise above 140/90 mm Hg compared with the other three drugs. (At baseline, average blood pressure for all patients was 128/77 mm Hg.)

And after 4 years, patients taking liraglutide lost an average of about 4 kg (8.8 lb) from their baseline weight (which averaged about 100 kg [220 lb]), roughly the same as patients taking sitagliptin but significantly better than with glimepiride or insulin glargine. Patients taking glargine gained a small amount of weight on average during their first couple of years of treatment, roughly 1 kg, but returned to around their baseline weight by the end of 4 years.
 

Four drugs performed equally well for some outcomes

Finally, the four drugs had similar results for some outcomes. This included their effects on renal function, distal sensory polyneuropathy, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol.

The four agents also had roughly similar safety profiles, with rates of serious adverse events all falling within the tight range of 33%-37%.

But the rate of severe hypoglycemic episodes that required assistance to treat showed significant separation, ranging from 2.3% for glimepiride, 1.4% for glargine, 0.9% for liraglutide, and 0.7% for sitagliptin. Gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in about 50% of patients in three of the treatment groups but were significantly higher in those taking liraglutide, affecting 60%.

GRADE received no commercial funding. Dr. Wexler has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Novo Nordisk. Dr. Buse has reported being a consultant for and holding stock in numerous companies. Dr. Rosenstock has reported being an advisor or consultant to Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, and Sanofi and has received research support from numerous companies. Dr. Kahn has reported being an advisor to or speaker on behalf of Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Casma Therapeutics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Third Rock Ventures. Dr. Matthews has reported receiving lecture and advisor fees from Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr. Lachin and Dr. Nathan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with type 1 diabetes who used insulin degludec as their basal insulin had fewer than half the number of nocturnal hypoglycemia events, compared with patients who used insulin glargine U100, in a head-to-head crossover study with 51 patients who had a history of nighttime hypoglycemia episodes.

Patients with type 1 diabetes who are “struggling with nocturnal hypoglycemia would benefit from insulin degludec treatment,” said Julie M. Brøsen, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Accumulating evidence for less hypoglycemia with insulin degludec

Results from several studies comparing insulin degludec (Tresiba), a second-generation, longer-acting insulin with more stable steady-state performance, with the first-generation basal insulin analogue glargine (Lantus), have built the case that degludec produces fewer hypoglycemia events.

The landmark SWITCH 1 crossover study published in 2017 showed in about 500 patients with type 1 diabetes and a risk factor for hypoglycemia that treatment with insulin degludec led to significantly few total hypoglycemia episodes and significantly fewer nocturnal episodes, compared with insulin glargine.

Next came similar findings from ReFLeCT, a multicenter observational study that followed 556 unselected patients with type 1 diabetes in routine practice settings who switched to insulin degludec following treatment with a different basal insulin. The results again showed a significant drop-off in total, nonsevere, severe, and nocturnal hypoglycemia events.
 

Homing in on higher-risk patients

The current study, HypoDeg (Insulin Degludec and Symptomatic Nocturnal Hypoglycaemia), ran at 10 Danish centers and enrolled 149 adults with type 1 diabetes who had at least one episode of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia within the prior 2 years, focusing on patients most at risk for future nocturnal hypoglycemia events. In an unusual study design, researchers identified nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes with hourly venous blood samples drawn from a subcutaneous line.

They randomized the patients to basal insulin treatment with either insulin degludec or to insulin glargine U100, allowed their treatment to stabilize for 3 months, and then tallied nocturnal hypoglycemia events for 9 months. They then crossed patients to the alternative basal insulin and repeated the process.

Results from the full study have not yet appeared in published form but were in a pair of reports at the 2020 scientific sessions of the ADA.

One report included findings based on 136 episodes of severe hypoglycemia identified clinically and showed these events occurred 35% less often during treatment with insulin degludec, a significant difference. The overall finding was primarily driven by 48% fewer episodes of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia, but this difference was not significant.

The second report identified hypoglycemia events with continuous glucose monitoring in 74 of the study participants, which identified 193 episodes of nonsevere nocturnal hypoglycemia and found that treatment with insulin degludec cut the rate by 47%, primarily by reducing asymptomatic episodes.

Hourly blood draws track overnight hypoglycemia

The current study included 51 of the 149 HypoDeg patients who agreed to undergo overnight blood sampling and had this done at least once while treated with each of the two study insulins. (The study design called for two blood sampling nights for each willing patient during each of the two treatment periods.) The 51 patients had type 1 diabetes for an average of 28 years and an average age of 58 years. Two-thirds were men, their baseline A1c was 7.8%, and on average had 2.6 episodes of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia during the prior 2 years.

The researchers drew hourly blood specimens on a total of 196 nights from the 51 participating patients and identified 57 nights when blood glucose levels reached hypoglycemia thresholds in 33 patients. One-third of the events occurred when patients were on insulin degludec treatment, and two-thirds when they were on insulin glargine, reported Dr. Brøsen.

She presented three separate analyses of the data. One analysis focused on level 1 hypoglycemia events, when blood glucose dips to 70 mg/dL or less, which occurred 54% less often when patients were on insulin degludec. A second analysis looked at level 2 events, when blood glucose falls below 54 mg/dL, and treatment with insulin degludec cut this by 64% compared with insulin glargine. The third analysis focused on symptomatic events when blood glucose was 70 mg/dL or less, and treatment with insulin degludec linked with a 62% cut in this metric. All three between-group differences were significant.
 

Evidence supports already-changed practice

This new evidence “supports recommending” insulin degludec over insulin glargine, commented Bastiaan E. de Galan, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor at Maastrict (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. The new results “extend those from previous trials in populations with type 1 diabetes that were unselected for the risk of hypoglycemia. In clinical practice, insulin degludec is already considered for patients who reported nocturnal hypoglycemia while on insulin glargine U100, but it’s great this study provides the scientific evidence,” said Dr. de Galan in an interview.

“The lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia with degludec, compared with glargine U100 is well established. Inpatient assessment of hypoglycemia with measurement of hourly plasma glucose allowed HypoDeg to provide stronger evidence than prior studies. The benefit of delgudec versus glargine U100 was significant and clinically meaningful, in hypo-prone patients who would benefit the most” by using insulin degludec, commented Gian Paolo Fadini, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Padova (Italy), and a lead investigator on the ReFLeCT study.

But insulin degludec is not a completely silver bullet. Its prolonged duration of action and stability that may in part explain why it limits hypoglycemia events can also be a drawback: “It probably offers fewer options for flexibility. Any change in dose takes at least a day or 2 to settle, which may be unfavorable in certain circumstances,” noted Dr. de Galan.

“I wouldn’t recommend insulin degludec for all patients with type 1 diabetes. It’s an individual evaluation in each patient,” said Dr. Brøsen. “We will be looking into whether some patients are better off on insulin glargine.”
 

Cost makes a difference

Another, potentially more consequential flaw is insulin degludec’s relative expense.

“To date, use of degludec in routine practice has been limited by its cost, compared with older basal insulins,” observed Dr. Fadini in an interview. “In several countries, including the United States, degludec is substantially more expensive than glargine.”

The ADA’s Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2021 includes table 9.3 that lists the costs of various insulins and shows the median average wholesale price of insulin glargine U100 follow-on products as $190/vial, compared with a $407 price for a similar vial of insulin degludec.

Insulin degludec “is clearly superior from a hypoglycemia standpoint. Patients with type 1 diabetes like the reduction because hypoglycemia is scary, and dangerous. The main issue is cost, and the extent to which it may be covered by insurance,” commented Lisa Chow, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We generally won’t prescribe degludec unless it is at a price affordable to the patient. We try to use patient assistance programs sponsored by the company [that markets insulin degludec: Novo Nordisk] to try to make it more affordable.”

Dr. Chow also highlighted that a new wrinkle has been introduction of a more concentrated formulation of insulin glargine, U300, which appears to cause less hypoglycemia than insulin glargine U100. Recent study results indicated that no significant difference exists in the incidence of hypoglycemia among patients treated with insulin glargine U300 and those treated with insulin degludec, such as findings from the BRIGHT trial, which included just over 900 patients, and in the CONCLUDE trial, which randomized more than 1,600 patients.

The HypoDeg study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets insulin degludec. Dr. Brøsen had no personal disclosures, but several of her coauthors were either Novo Nordisk employees or had financial relationships with the company. Dr. de Galan has received research funding from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Fadini has received lecture fees and research funding from Novo Nordisk, from Sanofi, the company that markets insulin glargine, and from several other companies. Dr. Chow has received research funding from Dexcom.

[email protected]

Patients with type 1 diabetes who used insulin degludec as their basal insulin had fewer than half the number of nocturnal hypoglycemia events, compared with patients who used insulin glargine U100, in a head-to-head crossover study with 51 patients who had a history of nighttime hypoglycemia episodes.

Patients with type 1 diabetes who are “struggling with nocturnal hypoglycemia would benefit from insulin degludec treatment,” said Julie M. Brøsen, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Accumulating evidence for less hypoglycemia with insulin degludec

Results from several studies comparing insulin degludec (Tresiba), a second-generation, longer-acting insulin with more stable steady-state performance, with the first-generation basal insulin analogue glargine (Lantus), have built the case that degludec produces fewer hypoglycemia events.

The landmark SWITCH 1 crossover study published in 2017 showed in about 500 patients with type 1 diabetes and a risk factor for hypoglycemia that treatment with insulin degludec led to significantly few total hypoglycemia episodes and significantly fewer nocturnal episodes, compared with insulin glargine.

Next came similar findings from ReFLeCT, a multicenter observational study that followed 556 unselected patients with type 1 diabetes in routine practice settings who switched to insulin degludec following treatment with a different basal insulin. The results again showed a significant drop-off in total, nonsevere, severe, and nocturnal hypoglycemia events.
 

Homing in on higher-risk patients

The current study, HypoDeg (Insulin Degludec and Symptomatic Nocturnal Hypoglycaemia), ran at 10 Danish centers and enrolled 149 adults with type 1 diabetes who had at least one episode of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia within the prior 2 years, focusing on patients most at risk for future nocturnal hypoglycemia events. In an unusual study design, researchers identified nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes with hourly venous blood samples drawn from a subcutaneous line.

They randomized the patients to basal insulin treatment with either insulin degludec or to insulin glargine U100, allowed their treatment to stabilize for 3 months, and then tallied nocturnal hypoglycemia events for 9 months. They then crossed patients to the alternative basal insulin and repeated the process.

Results from the full study have not yet appeared in published form but were in a pair of reports at the 2020 scientific sessions of the ADA.

One report included findings based on 136 episodes of severe hypoglycemia identified clinically and showed these events occurred 35% less often during treatment with insulin degludec, a significant difference. The overall finding was primarily driven by 48% fewer episodes of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia, but this difference was not significant.

The second report identified hypoglycemia events with continuous glucose monitoring in 74 of the study participants, which identified 193 episodes of nonsevere nocturnal hypoglycemia and found that treatment with insulin degludec cut the rate by 47%, primarily by reducing asymptomatic episodes.

Hourly blood draws track overnight hypoglycemia

The current study included 51 of the 149 HypoDeg patients who agreed to undergo overnight blood sampling and had this done at least once while treated with each of the two study insulins. (The study design called for two blood sampling nights for each willing patient during each of the two treatment periods.) The 51 patients had type 1 diabetes for an average of 28 years and an average age of 58 years. Two-thirds were men, their baseline A1c was 7.8%, and on average had 2.6 episodes of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia during the prior 2 years.

The researchers drew hourly blood specimens on a total of 196 nights from the 51 participating patients and identified 57 nights when blood glucose levels reached hypoglycemia thresholds in 33 patients. One-third of the events occurred when patients were on insulin degludec treatment, and two-thirds when they were on insulin glargine, reported Dr. Brøsen.

She presented three separate analyses of the data. One analysis focused on level 1 hypoglycemia events, when blood glucose dips to 70 mg/dL or less, which occurred 54% less often when patients were on insulin degludec. A second analysis looked at level 2 events, when blood glucose falls below 54 mg/dL, and treatment with insulin degludec cut this by 64% compared with insulin glargine. The third analysis focused on symptomatic events when blood glucose was 70 mg/dL or less, and treatment with insulin degludec linked with a 62% cut in this metric. All three between-group differences were significant.
 

Evidence supports already-changed practice

This new evidence “supports recommending” insulin degludec over insulin glargine, commented Bastiaan E. de Galan, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor at Maastrict (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. The new results “extend those from previous trials in populations with type 1 diabetes that were unselected for the risk of hypoglycemia. In clinical practice, insulin degludec is already considered for patients who reported nocturnal hypoglycemia while on insulin glargine U100, but it’s great this study provides the scientific evidence,” said Dr. de Galan in an interview.

“The lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia with degludec, compared with glargine U100 is well established. Inpatient assessment of hypoglycemia with measurement of hourly plasma glucose allowed HypoDeg to provide stronger evidence than prior studies. The benefit of delgudec versus glargine U100 was significant and clinically meaningful, in hypo-prone patients who would benefit the most” by using insulin degludec, commented Gian Paolo Fadini, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Padova (Italy), and a lead investigator on the ReFLeCT study.

But insulin degludec is not a completely silver bullet. Its prolonged duration of action and stability that may in part explain why it limits hypoglycemia events can also be a drawback: “It probably offers fewer options for flexibility. Any change in dose takes at least a day or 2 to settle, which may be unfavorable in certain circumstances,” noted Dr. de Galan.

“I wouldn’t recommend insulin degludec for all patients with type 1 diabetes. It’s an individual evaluation in each patient,” said Dr. Brøsen. “We will be looking into whether some patients are better off on insulin glargine.”
 

Cost makes a difference

Another, potentially more consequential flaw is insulin degludec’s relative expense.

“To date, use of degludec in routine practice has been limited by its cost, compared with older basal insulins,” observed Dr. Fadini in an interview. “In several countries, including the United States, degludec is substantially more expensive than glargine.”

The ADA’s Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2021 includes table 9.3 that lists the costs of various insulins and shows the median average wholesale price of insulin glargine U100 follow-on products as $190/vial, compared with a $407 price for a similar vial of insulin degludec.

Insulin degludec “is clearly superior from a hypoglycemia standpoint. Patients with type 1 diabetes like the reduction because hypoglycemia is scary, and dangerous. The main issue is cost, and the extent to which it may be covered by insurance,” commented Lisa Chow, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We generally won’t prescribe degludec unless it is at a price affordable to the patient. We try to use patient assistance programs sponsored by the company [that markets insulin degludec: Novo Nordisk] to try to make it more affordable.”

Dr. Chow also highlighted that a new wrinkle has been introduction of a more concentrated formulation of insulin glargine, U300, which appears to cause less hypoglycemia than insulin glargine U100. Recent study results indicated that no significant difference exists in the incidence of hypoglycemia among patients treated with insulin glargine U300 and those treated with insulin degludec, such as findings from the BRIGHT trial, which included just over 900 patients, and in the CONCLUDE trial, which randomized more than 1,600 patients.

The HypoDeg study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets insulin degludec. Dr. Brøsen had no personal disclosures, but several of her coauthors were either Novo Nordisk employees or had financial relationships with the company. Dr. de Galan has received research funding from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Fadini has received lecture fees and research funding from Novo Nordisk, from Sanofi, the company that markets insulin glargine, and from several other companies. Dr. Chow has received research funding from Dexcom.

[email protected]

Patients with type 1 diabetes who used insulin degludec as their basal insulin had fewer than half the number of nocturnal hypoglycemia events, compared with patients who used insulin glargine U100, in a head-to-head crossover study with 51 patients who had a history of nighttime hypoglycemia episodes.

Patients with type 1 diabetes who are “struggling with nocturnal hypoglycemia would benefit from insulin degludec treatment,” said Julie M. Brøsen, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
 

Accumulating evidence for less hypoglycemia with insulin degludec

Results from several studies comparing insulin degludec (Tresiba), a second-generation, longer-acting insulin with more stable steady-state performance, with the first-generation basal insulin analogue glargine (Lantus), have built the case that degludec produces fewer hypoglycemia events.

The landmark SWITCH 1 crossover study published in 2017 showed in about 500 patients with type 1 diabetes and a risk factor for hypoglycemia that treatment with insulin degludec led to significantly few total hypoglycemia episodes and significantly fewer nocturnal episodes, compared with insulin glargine.

Next came similar findings from ReFLeCT, a multicenter observational study that followed 556 unselected patients with type 1 diabetes in routine practice settings who switched to insulin degludec following treatment with a different basal insulin. The results again showed a significant drop-off in total, nonsevere, severe, and nocturnal hypoglycemia events.
 

Homing in on higher-risk patients

The current study, HypoDeg (Insulin Degludec and Symptomatic Nocturnal Hypoglycaemia), ran at 10 Danish centers and enrolled 149 adults with type 1 diabetes who had at least one episode of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia within the prior 2 years, focusing on patients most at risk for future nocturnal hypoglycemia events. In an unusual study design, researchers identified nocturnal hypoglycemic episodes with hourly venous blood samples drawn from a subcutaneous line.

They randomized the patients to basal insulin treatment with either insulin degludec or to insulin glargine U100, allowed their treatment to stabilize for 3 months, and then tallied nocturnal hypoglycemia events for 9 months. They then crossed patients to the alternative basal insulin and repeated the process.

Results from the full study have not yet appeared in published form but were in a pair of reports at the 2020 scientific sessions of the ADA.

One report included findings based on 136 episodes of severe hypoglycemia identified clinically and showed these events occurred 35% less often during treatment with insulin degludec, a significant difference. The overall finding was primarily driven by 48% fewer episodes of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia, but this difference was not significant.

The second report identified hypoglycemia events with continuous glucose monitoring in 74 of the study participants, which identified 193 episodes of nonsevere nocturnal hypoglycemia and found that treatment with insulin degludec cut the rate by 47%, primarily by reducing asymptomatic episodes.

Hourly blood draws track overnight hypoglycemia

The current study included 51 of the 149 HypoDeg patients who agreed to undergo overnight blood sampling and had this done at least once while treated with each of the two study insulins. (The study design called for two blood sampling nights for each willing patient during each of the two treatment periods.) The 51 patients had type 1 diabetes for an average of 28 years and an average age of 58 years. Two-thirds were men, their baseline A1c was 7.8%, and on average had 2.6 episodes of severe nocturnal hypoglycemia during the prior 2 years.

The researchers drew hourly blood specimens on a total of 196 nights from the 51 participating patients and identified 57 nights when blood glucose levels reached hypoglycemia thresholds in 33 patients. One-third of the events occurred when patients were on insulin degludec treatment, and two-thirds when they were on insulin glargine, reported Dr. Brøsen.

She presented three separate analyses of the data. One analysis focused on level 1 hypoglycemia events, when blood glucose dips to 70 mg/dL or less, which occurred 54% less often when patients were on insulin degludec. A second analysis looked at level 2 events, when blood glucose falls below 54 mg/dL, and treatment with insulin degludec cut this by 64% compared with insulin glargine. The third analysis focused on symptomatic events when blood glucose was 70 mg/dL or less, and treatment with insulin degludec linked with a 62% cut in this metric. All three between-group differences were significant.
 

Evidence supports already-changed practice

This new evidence “supports recommending” insulin degludec over insulin glargine, commented Bastiaan E. de Galan, MD, PhD, an endocrinologist and professor at Maastrict (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. The new results “extend those from previous trials in populations with type 1 diabetes that were unselected for the risk of hypoglycemia. In clinical practice, insulin degludec is already considered for patients who reported nocturnal hypoglycemia while on insulin glargine U100, but it’s great this study provides the scientific evidence,” said Dr. de Galan in an interview.

“The lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia with degludec, compared with glargine U100 is well established. Inpatient assessment of hypoglycemia with measurement of hourly plasma glucose allowed HypoDeg to provide stronger evidence than prior studies. The benefit of delgudec versus glargine U100 was significant and clinically meaningful, in hypo-prone patients who would benefit the most” by using insulin degludec, commented Gian Paolo Fadini, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Padova (Italy), and a lead investigator on the ReFLeCT study.

But insulin degludec is not a completely silver bullet. Its prolonged duration of action and stability that may in part explain why it limits hypoglycemia events can also be a drawback: “It probably offers fewer options for flexibility. Any change in dose takes at least a day or 2 to settle, which may be unfavorable in certain circumstances,” noted Dr. de Galan.

“I wouldn’t recommend insulin degludec for all patients with type 1 diabetes. It’s an individual evaluation in each patient,” said Dr. Brøsen. “We will be looking into whether some patients are better off on insulin glargine.”
 

Cost makes a difference

Another, potentially more consequential flaw is insulin degludec’s relative expense.

“To date, use of degludec in routine practice has been limited by its cost, compared with older basal insulins,” observed Dr. Fadini in an interview. “In several countries, including the United States, degludec is substantially more expensive than glargine.”

The ADA’s Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2021 includes table 9.3 that lists the costs of various insulins and shows the median average wholesale price of insulin glargine U100 follow-on products as $190/vial, compared with a $407 price for a similar vial of insulin degludec.

Insulin degludec “is clearly superior from a hypoglycemia standpoint. Patients with type 1 diabetes like the reduction because hypoglycemia is scary, and dangerous. The main issue is cost, and the extent to which it may be covered by insurance,” commented Lisa Chow, MD, an endocrinologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. “We generally won’t prescribe degludec unless it is at a price affordable to the patient. We try to use patient assistance programs sponsored by the company [that markets insulin degludec: Novo Nordisk] to try to make it more affordable.”

Dr. Chow also highlighted that a new wrinkle has been introduction of a more concentrated formulation of insulin glargine, U300, which appears to cause less hypoglycemia than insulin glargine U100. Recent study results indicated that no significant difference exists in the incidence of hypoglycemia among patients treated with insulin glargine U300 and those treated with insulin degludec, such as findings from the BRIGHT trial, which included just over 900 patients, and in the CONCLUDE trial, which randomized more than 1,600 patients.

The HypoDeg study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets insulin degludec. Dr. Brøsen had no personal disclosures, but several of her coauthors were either Novo Nordisk employees or had financial relationships with the company. Dr. de Galan has received research funding from Novo Nordisk. Dr. Fadini has received lecture fees and research funding from Novo Nordisk, from Sanofi, the company that markets insulin glargine, and from several other companies. Dr. Chow has received research funding from Dexcom.

[email protected]

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Accumulating evidence shows that for many patients with type 2 diabetes, a bigger dose of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide is better if the goal is a larger decrease in hemoglobin A1c and weight.

Just weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved an increased, 2.4-mg/week dose of semaglutide (Wegovy) for the indication of weight loss, results from a new randomized study with 961 patients that directly compared the standard 1.0-mg weekly dose for glycemic control with a 2.0-mg weekly dose showed that, over 40 weeks, the higher dose produced modest incremental improvements in both A1c reduction and weight loss while maintaining safety.

“Once weekly 2.0-mg subcutaneous semaglutide [Ozempic] was superior to 1.0 mg in reducing A1c, with greater weight loss and a similar safety profile,” Juan P. Frias, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association while presenting results of the SUSTAIN FORTE trial.

Average impact of the increased efficacy was measured. In the study’s “treatment policy estimand” analysis (considered equivalent to an intention-to-treat analysis), the primary endpoint of the cut in average A1c fell by a further 0.18% among patients on the higher dose, compared with the lower-dose arm, a significant difference in patients who entered the study with an average A1c of 8.9%. The average incremental boost for weight loss on the higher dose was about 0.8 kg, a difference that just missed significance (P = .0535).

In the study’s “trial product estimand” analysis (which censors data when patients stop the study drug or add on rescue medications), the effects were slightly more robust. The 2-mg dose produced an average 0.23% incremental decrease in A1c, compared with 1 mg, and an average incremental 0.93-kg weight reduction, both significant, reported Dr. Frias, an endocrinologist and medical director of the National Research Institute in Los Angeles.

Dr. Frias highlighted that these modest average differences had a clinical impact for some patients. In the treatment product estimand analysis, the percentage of patients achieving an A1c level of less than 7.0% increased from 58% of those who received 1 mg semaglutide to 68% of those treated with 2 mg, and achievement of an A1c of less than 6.5% occurred in 39% of patients on 1 mg and in 52% of those on 2 mg.

A similar pattern existed for weight loss in the treatment product estimand. Weight loss of at least 5% happened in 51% of patients on the 1-mg dose and in 59% of those on the higher dose.
 

Gradual up-titration aids tolerance

“The GLP-1 receptor agonists have so many benefits, but we were concerned in the past about pushing the dose. We’ve learned more about how to do that so that patients can better tolerate it,” commented Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medicine officer of the ADA in Arlington, Va. “The challenge with the medications from this class has been tolerability.”

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

A key to minimizing adverse effects, especially gastrointestinal effects, from treatment with semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists has been more gradual up-titration to the target dose, Dr. Gabbay noted in an interview, and SUSTAIN FORTE took this approach. All patients started on a 0.25-mg injection of semaglutide once weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by a 0.5-mg dose once weekly for 4 weeks, and then a 1.0 mg weekly dose. Patients in the arm randomized to receive 2.0 mg had one further dose escalation after receiving the 1.0-mg dose for 4 weeks.

The result was that gastrointestinal adverse effects occurred in 31% of patients maintained for 32 weeks on the 1-mg dose (with 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment), and in 34% of patients who received the 2-mg dose for 28 weeks (and 40 total weeks of semaglutide treatment). Serious adverse events of all types occurred in 5% of patients in the 1-mg arm and in 4% of those on 2 mg. Total adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in about 4.5% of patients in both arms, and discontinuations because of gastrointestinal effects occurred in about 3% of patients in both arms.

Severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred in 1 patient maintained on 1 mg weekly and in 2 patients in the 2-mg arm, while clinically significant episodes of hypoglycemia occurred in 18 patients on the 1-mg dose (4%) and in 12 of the patients on 2 mg (3%).

“It’s reassuring that the higher dose is tolerated,” commented Dr. Gabbay.
 

Several doses to choose from

SUSTAIN FORTE ran during 2019-2020 at about 125 centers in 10 countries, with roughly half the sites in the United States. It randomized adults with type 2 diabetes and an A1c of 8.0%-10.0% despite ongoing metformin treatment in all patients. Just over half the patients were also maintained on a sulfonylurea agent at entry. The enrolled patients had been diagnosed with diabetes for an average of about 10 years. They averaged 58 years of age, their body mass index averaged nearly 35 kg/m2, and about 58% were men.

The new evidence in support of a 2.0-mg weekly dose of semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes introduces a new wrinkle in a growing menu of dose options for this drug. On June 4, 2021, the FDA approved a weekly 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide for the indication of weight loss regardless of diabetes status in patients with a body mass index of 30 or higher (or in people at 27 or more with at least one weight-related comorbidity).

Dr. Gabbay suggested that, in practice, clinicians may focus more on treatment goals for individual patients rather than drug dose, especially with an agent that’s safer with slow dose titration.

In general, “clinicians establish a goal for each patient’s A1c; you use the drug dose that gets you there,” he observed.

SUSTAIN FORTE was sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide. Dr. Frias has been a consultant to Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies, he has been a speaker on behalf of Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi, and he has received research funding from Novo Nordisk and numerous other companies. Dr. Gabbay had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]