Clinical Endocrinology News

New data show that sleeve gastrectomy, but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, is linked with better disease-specific outcomes in morbidly obese patients who have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Previous studies have shown that bariatric surgery is safe for people with IBD, but there have been few long-term data on whether the weight loss improves disease outcomes for that population, said lead author Aakash Desai, MD, from the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Gastroenterologists are often hesitant to pursue bariatric surgery in patients with IBD because of potential complications from taking immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Desai added.

“We hope that this encourages providers caring for patients with IBD to make a referral to a weight loss specialist who can evaluate whether they would be candidates for bariatric surgery,” he said.

The findings from Dr. Desai and co-authors were published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Outcomes compared with and without surgery

The prevalence of obesity in patients with IBD ranges from 15% to 40%, the authors note.

And although obesity is a risk factor for IBD disease severity and clinical outcomes, studies on its influence on disease outcomes in patients with IBD have reported conflicting results. The effect of bariatric surgery, an antiobesity intervention, on IBD outcomes also has not been well understood, the authors write.

To evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on IBD, the researchers compared outcomes in patients living with IBD and morbid obesity who had bariatric surgery versus those in patients living with both conditions who had not had surgery. The retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study used de-identified U.S. data on 473 patients and 473 controls from TriNetX, a diverse, population-based research network of health care organizations.

The primary endpoint was a composite of disease-related complications. The composite included a disease flare that resulted in hospitalization requiring an intravenous steroid or major IBD-related surgery within 2 years.

Researchers found that the surgery group had a lower risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56) for a composite of IBD-related complications, compared with controls.

Looking at the impact of bariatric surgery type, they found that patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.66) for the composite of IBD-related complications. There was no significant difference in the risk (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31) for composite IBD-related complications between the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group and controls.

As to why sleeve gastrectomy can improve outcomes with IBD, the authors write that “studies have shown a decrease in the low chronic pro-inflammatory state associated with obesity with reductions in C-reactive protein, TNF-α, and IL-6 following weight loss after [bariatric surgery].”

The authors add that another reason could be that the decrease from surgery in adipose tissue hypertrophy and ectopic fat around the bowel may help regulate intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease and “may affect the need for rescue therapy with intravenous steroids, failure/escalation of therapy, and risk of surgery.”
 

Study helps confirm benefits of weight loss

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said this study furthers understanding because it used a large national database and helps confirm findings from smaller cohorts regarding the benefit of large weight loss for patients with IBD.

“Obesity can worsen the severity of inflammatory conditions,” he said in an interview, so it can be hard for gastroenterologists to help patients with obesity to control their IBD symptoms. Dr. Aminian has previously published research on the relationship between IBD and obesity.

“Telling the patient to eat less or exercise probably won’t help,” he said, adding that this study helps make the case for either bariatric surgery or new weight loss medications that have demonstrated significant effect.

Dr. Aminian said this study showed a dramatic benefit after bariatric surgery for IBD patients, but some questions need further study.

“Ideally, we need to have prospective clinical trials with a good control group and accurate endoscopy findings” to get a true long-term picture of the weight loss effect on IBD, he said.

Dr. Desai reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Farraye serves on advisory boards for Braintree, BMS, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sebela and is on the data safety monitoring board for Adiso Therapeutics. Co-author Kochhar serves on the advisory boards for Lilly Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas Research Foundation, and GIE Medical and has stock options with Digbi Health. Aminian receives research support and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data show that sleeve gastrectomy, but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, is linked with better disease-specific outcomes in morbidly obese patients who have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Previous studies have shown that bariatric surgery is safe for people with IBD, but there have been few long-term data on whether the weight loss improves disease outcomes for that population, said lead author Aakash Desai, MD, from the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Gastroenterologists are often hesitant to pursue bariatric surgery in patients with IBD because of potential complications from taking immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Desai added.

“We hope that this encourages providers caring for patients with IBD to make a referral to a weight loss specialist who can evaluate whether they would be candidates for bariatric surgery,” he said.

The findings from Dr. Desai and co-authors were published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Outcomes compared with and without surgery

The prevalence of obesity in patients with IBD ranges from 15% to 40%, the authors note.

And although obesity is a risk factor for IBD disease severity and clinical outcomes, studies on its influence on disease outcomes in patients with IBD have reported conflicting results. The effect of bariatric surgery, an antiobesity intervention, on IBD outcomes also has not been well understood, the authors write.

To evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on IBD, the researchers compared outcomes in patients living with IBD and morbid obesity who had bariatric surgery versus those in patients living with both conditions who had not had surgery. The retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study used de-identified U.S. data on 473 patients and 473 controls from TriNetX, a diverse, population-based research network of health care organizations.

The primary endpoint was a composite of disease-related complications. The composite included a disease flare that resulted in hospitalization requiring an intravenous steroid or major IBD-related surgery within 2 years.

Researchers found that the surgery group had a lower risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56) for a composite of IBD-related complications, compared with controls.

Looking at the impact of bariatric surgery type, they found that patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.66) for the composite of IBD-related complications. There was no significant difference in the risk (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31) for composite IBD-related complications between the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group and controls.

As to why sleeve gastrectomy can improve outcomes with IBD, the authors write that “studies have shown a decrease in the low chronic pro-inflammatory state associated with obesity with reductions in C-reactive protein, TNF-α, and IL-6 following weight loss after [bariatric surgery].”

The authors add that another reason could be that the decrease from surgery in adipose tissue hypertrophy and ectopic fat around the bowel may help regulate intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease and “may affect the need for rescue therapy with intravenous steroids, failure/escalation of therapy, and risk of surgery.”
 

Study helps confirm benefits of weight loss

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said this study furthers understanding because it used a large national database and helps confirm findings from smaller cohorts regarding the benefit of large weight loss for patients with IBD.

“Obesity can worsen the severity of inflammatory conditions,” he said in an interview, so it can be hard for gastroenterologists to help patients with obesity to control their IBD symptoms. Dr. Aminian has previously published research on the relationship between IBD and obesity.

“Telling the patient to eat less or exercise probably won’t help,” he said, adding that this study helps make the case for either bariatric surgery or new weight loss medications that have demonstrated significant effect.

Dr. Aminian said this study showed a dramatic benefit after bariatric surgery for IBD patients, but some questions need further study.

“Ideally, we need to have prospective clinical trials with a good control group and accurate endoscopy findings” to get a true long-term picture of the weight loss effect on IBD, he said.

Dr. Desai reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Farraye serves on advisory boards for Braintree, BMS, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sebela and is on the data safety monitoring board for Adiso Therapeutics. Co-author Kochhar serves on the advisory boards for Lilly Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas Research Foundation, and GIE Medical and has stock options with Digbi Health. Aminian receives research support and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New data show that sleeve gastrectomy, but not Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, is linked with better disease-specific outcomes in morbidly obese patients who have inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Previous studies have shown that bariatric surgery is safe for people with IBD, but there have been few long-term data on whether the weight loss improves disease outcomes for that population, said lead author Aakash Desai, MD, from the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Gastroenterologists are often hesitant to pursue bariatric surgery in patients with IBD because of potential complications from taking immunosuppressive medications, Dr. Desai added.

“We hope that this encourages providers caring for patients with IBD to make a referral to a weight loss specialist who can evaluate whether they would be candidates for bariatric surgery,” he said.

The findings from Dr. Desai and co-authors were published online in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.
 

Outcomes compared with and without surgery

The prevalence of obesity in patients with IBD ranges from 15% to 40%, the authors note.

And although obesity is a risk factor for IBD disease severity and clinical outcomes, studies on its influence on disease outcomes in patients with IBD have reported conflicting results. The effect of bariatric surgery, an antiobesity intervention, on IBD outcomes also has not been well understood, the authors write.

To evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on IBD, the researchers compared outcomes in patients living with IBD and morbid obesity who had bariatric surgery versus those in patients living with both conditions who had not had surgery. The retrospective, propensity score–matched cohort study used de-identified U.S. data on 473 patients and 473 controls from TriNetX, a diverse, population-based research network of health care organizations.

The primary endpoint was a composite of disease-related complications. The composite included a disease flare that resulted in hospitalization requiring an intravenous steroid or major IBD-related surgery within 2 years.

Researchers found that the surgery group had a lower risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56) for a composite of IBD-related complications, compared with controls.

Looking at the impact of bariatric surgery type, they found that patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy had a decreased risk (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.66) for the composite of IBD-related complications. There was no significant difference in the risk (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31) for composite IBD-related complications between the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group and controls.

As to why sleeve gastrectomy can improve outcomes with IBD, the authors write that “studies have shown a decrease in the low chronic pro-inflammatory state associated with obesity with reductions in C-reactive protein, TNF-α, and IL-6 following weight loss after [bariatric surgery].”

The authors add that another reason could be that the decrease from surgery in adipose tissue hypertrophy and ectopic fat around the bowel may help regulate intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease and “may affect the need for rescue therapy with intravenous steroids, failure/escalation of therapy, and risk of surgery.”
 

Study helps confirm benefits of weight loss

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, said this study furthers understanding because it used a large national database and helps confirm findings from smaller cohorts regarding the benefit of large weight loss for patients with IBD.

“Obesity can worsen the severity of inflammatory conditions,” he said in an interview, so it can be hard for gastroenterologists to help patients with obesity to control their IBD symptoms. Dr. Aminian has previously published research on the relationship between IBD and obesity.

“Telling the patient to eat less or exercise probably won’t help,” he said, adding that this study helps make the case for either bariatric surgery or new weight loss medications that have demonstrated significant effect.

Dr. Aminian said this study showed a dramatic benefit after bariatric surgery for IBD patients, but some questions need further study.

“Ideally, we need to have prospective clinical trials with a good control group and accurate endoscopy findings” to get a true long-term picture of the weight loss effect on IBD, he said.

Dr. Desai reports no relevant financial relationships. Co-author Farraye serves on advisory boards for Braintree, BMS, GI Reviewers, GSK, IBD Educational Group, Iterative Health, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sebela and is on the data safety monitoring board for Adiso Therapeutics. Co-author Kochhar serves on the advisory boards for Lilly Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas Research Foundation, and GIE Medical and has stock options with Digbi Health. Aminian receives research support and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Ethicon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Should pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes start with combination therapy or metformin monotherapy, adding other agents over time?

This question was debated by two well-known clinician-researchers in the diabetes world at the recent annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Ralph A. DeFronzo, MD, argued for combination therapy at the time of diagnosis, and David M. Nathan, MD, countered that sequential therapy is a better way to go.
 

‘The ominous octet’: Addressing multiple underlying defects

Of course, Dr. DeFronzo said, the right agents must be selected. “The drugs we’re going to use as combination at a minimum have to correct the underlying insulin resistance and beta-cell failure, or we are not going to be successful.”

In addition, he said, these drugs should also provide protection against cardiovascular, kidney, and fatty liver disease, because “[managing] diabetes is more than just controlling the glucose.”

Recent U.S. data suggest that half of people with diabetes have a hemoglobin A1c above 7%, and a quarter remain above 8%. “We’re not really doing a very good job in terms of glycemic control,” said Dr. DeFronzo, chief of the diabetes division at University of Texas, San Antonio.

One reason for this failure, he said, is the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes represented by eight major defects, what he called the “ominous octet”: decreased pancreatic insulin secretion, gut incretin effects, glucose uptake in the muscle, increased lipolysis, glucose reabsorption in the kidney, hepatic glucose production, increased glucagon secretion, and neurotransmitter dysfunction.

“There are eight problems, so you’re going to need multiple drugs in combination ... not ones that just lower the A1c.”

And, Dr. DeFronzo said, these drugs “must be started early in the natural history of type 2 diabetes if progressive beta-cell failure is to be prevented.”

He pointed to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), in which the sulfonylurea glyburide was used first, followed by metformin. With each drug, the A1c decreased initially but then rose within 3 years. By 15 years, 65% of participants were taking insulin.

More recently, the GRADE study examined the effects of adding four different glucose-lowering agents (glimepiride, sitagliptin, liraglutide, or insulin glargine) in people who hadn’t achieved target A1c with metformin.

“So, by definition, drug number one failed,” he observed.

During the study, all participants showed an initial A1c drop, followed by progressive failure, “again ... showing that stepwise therapy doesn’t work.”

All patients with type 2 diabetes at his center are treated using the “DeFronzo algorithm” consisting of three drug classes: a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and pioglitazone, as each of them targets more than one of the “ominous octet” defects.

“The drugs that clearly do not work on a long-term basis are metformin and sulfonylureas,” he emphasized.

Several studies demonstrate the efficacy of combination therapy, he said. In one, DURATION 8, the combination of exenatide and dapagliflozin was superior to either agent individually in lowering A1c, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality over 2 years.

And in the 5-year VERIFY study, early combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin proved superior in A1c-lowering to starting patients on metformin and adding vildagliptin later.

Dr. DeFronzo’s own “knock-out punch” study, EDICT, in people with new-onset type 2 diabetes, compared the initial combination of metformin, pioglitazone, and exenatide with conventional sequential add-on therapy with metformin, glipizide, and insulin glargine.

The primary endpoint – the difference in the proportion of patients with A1c less than 6.5% – was 70% versus 29% with combination compared with sequential therapy, a difference “as robust as you can be going against the stepwise approach” at P < .00001, he said.

The combination therapy virtually normalized both insulin sensitivity and beta-cell function, whereas the conventional therapy did neither.

Also from Dr. DeFronzo’s group, in the Qatar study, which compared exenatide plus pioglitazone with basal-bolus insulin in people with about 10 years’ duration of type 2 diabetes and A1c above 7.5% taking sulfonylurea plus metformin, the combination therapy produced an A1c of 6.2% versus 7.1% with insulin.

Dr. DeFronzo pointed to new language added to the ADA Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes in 2022.

While still endorsing stepwise therapy, the document also says that “there are data to support initial combination therapy for more rapid attainment of glycemic targets and longer durability of glycemic effect.” The two references cited are EDICT and VERIFY.

“Finally, the American Diabetes Association has gotten the message,” he concluded.
 

Sequential therapy: Far more data, lower cost

Dr. Nathan began by pointing out that the ADA Standards of Care continue to advise use of metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes “because of its high efficacy in lowering A1c, minimal hypoglycemia risk when used as monotherapy, weight neutrality with the potential for modest weight loss, good safety profile, and low cost.”

He emphasized that he was not arguing “against the use of early or even initial combination therapy when there are co-existent morbidities [such as cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease] that merit use of demonstrably effective medications.” But Dr. Nathan pointed out, those patients are not the majority with type 2 diabetes.

He laid out four main arguments for choosing traditional sequential therapy over initial combination therapy. For one, it “enables determination of efficacy of adding individual medications, while initial combination precludes determining benefits of individual drugs.”

Second, traditional sequential therapy allows for assessment of side effects from individual drugs.

“With Dr. DeFronzo’s algorithm you throw everything at them, and if they get nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, you won’t know which drug it is ... If they get an allergic reaction, you won’t know which medication it is,” observed Dr. Nathan, who is director of the clinical research center and the diabetes center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Moreover, he said, traditional sequential therapy “promotes individualization, with selection of drugs, which is something we’re laboring to achieve. Initial combination obviously limits that.”

Further, sequential therapy is “parsimonious and cost-effective, whereas initial combination therapy is expensive, with modest advantages at most.”

And, there are “lots of data” supporting traditional sequential therapy and relatively little for initial combination therapy.

Dr. Nathan added that when he searched the literature for relevant randomized clinical trials, he found 16 investigating initial combination therapy versus monotherapy, but only three that examined combination versus sequential therapy.

“Very few of them, except for EDICT and VERIFY, actually include the sequential therapy that we would use in practice,” he said.

Moreover, he observed, except for the VERIFY study, most are less than half a year in duration. And in VERIFY, there was an initial 20% difference in the proportions of patients with A1c below 7.0%, but by 12 months, that difference had shrunk to just 5%-6%.

“So, looking over time is very important,” Dr. Nathan cautioned. “We really have to be careful ... Six months is barely enough time to see A1c equilibrate ... You really need to study a long-term, chronic, progressive disease like type 2 diabetes over a long enough period of time to be clinically meaningful.”

Dr. Nathan acknowledged to Dr. DeFronzo that the latter’s EDICT study was “well conducted” and “long enough,” and that the researchers did examine monotherapy versus sequential therapy. However, he pointed out that it was a small study with 249 patients and the dropout rate was high, with 58% of patients remaining in the study with triple therapy versus 68% for conventional treatment. “That’s a bit problematic,” Dr. Nathan noted.

At 2 years, the “trivial” difference in A1c was 6.5% with conventional therapy versus 6.0% with triple therapy. “This is all on the very flat complications curve with regard to A1c,” he observed.

Patients treated with sequential therapy with sulfonylurea and insulin had higher rates of hypoglycemia and weight gain, whereas the combination triple therapy group had more gastrointestinal side effects and edema.

However, the most dramatic difference was cost: the average wholesale price for sequential therapy totaled about $85 per month, compared with $1,310 for initial combination therapy. For the approximately 1.5 million patients with new-onset type 2 diabetes in the United States, that difference comes to an additional cost per year of about $22 billion, Dr. Nathan calculated.

“Although current sequential therapy leaves much to be desired ... initial combination therapy has generally only been tested for brief, clinically insufficient periods.

“And therefore, I think sequential therapy is still what is called for,” he concluded. “Well-powered, acceptable-duration studies need to be performed before we can adopt initial/early combination therapy as the standard of care.”

Dr. DeFronzo has reported receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, and Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Intarcia, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nathan has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

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

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

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

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval today of the first birth control pill for women to be available without a prescription is being hailed by many as a long-needed development, but there remain questions to be resolved, including how much the drug will cost and how it will be used.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug, Opill, is expected to be available early next year, and its maker has yet to reveal a retail price. It is the same birth control pill that has been available by prescription for 50 years. But for the first time, women will be able to buy the contraception at a local pharmacy, other retail locations, or online without having to see a doctor first.

Likely to drive debate

Contraception in the United States is not without controversy. The FDA’s approval spurred reactions both for and against making hormonal birth control for women available without a prescription.

“It’s an exciting time, especially right now when reproductive rights are being curtailed in a lot of states. Giving people an additional option for contraception will change people’s lives,” said Beverly Gray, MD, division director of Women’s Community and Population Health at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.

“It’s a huge win for patients who need better access to contraception,” said Dr. Gray, who is also a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Women who want hormonal birth control but live in areas without convenient access to a doctor, women who cannot easily take time off of work to see a doctor and get a prescription filled, and women without insurance are examples of people who will benefit, she said.

The Catholic Medical Association, in contrast, expressed “deep concern and disappointment” after an FDA advisory committee’s unanimous vote on May 11 recommending the drug be available over the counter. In a statement after the vote, the group cited “extensive medical studies demonstrating the risks and adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives,” adding that “the social impact of [full approval] would be dramatic.”

But doctors largely disagreed.

“It is definitely a huge win for reproductive autonomy. I’m glad that the FDA is prioritizing patient safety and well-being over politics,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. and clinical professor in the University of California Davis department of obstetrics and gynecology. She said the FDA approved the over-the-counter version because the medication is safe.

While opponents like the Catholic Medical Association cite safety concerns and believe doctors should screen all women before prescribing hormonal contraception, Dr. Gray disagreed. “There’s a lot of evidence that patients can figure out if a progestin-only pill is right for them and safe for them. Medical professionals don’t have to be the gatekeepers for contraception,” she said.

Pricing unknown

Whether insurance companies will pay for Opill now that it will be available without a prescription remains unknown. For some medications, paying a copay through insurance can be less expensive than buying at a retail price.

“Although pricing issues will be relevant, the FDA’s decision will enhance women’s access to hormonal birth control,” said Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, a professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville.

The drugmaker, Perrigo, based in Ireland, has not yet announced how much the pill will cost. The price tag could affect how widely available this form of birth control is. The drug has been shown to be as much as 93% effective for pregnancy prevention. Perrigo says it plans to make the pill available at low or no cost to some women.

Caveats to consider

There are some women for whom hormonal contraceptives have always carried greater risks. For example, women who have breast cancer or a history of breast cancer should not use hormonal contraceptives, the FDA said in a news release announcing the approval. Women with other types of cancer should check with their doctors first, the agency noted.

Women who smoke, who take some medications to lower blood pressure, or who have migraines should also take caution, Dr. Cansino said. “People with migraines may not be suitable for over-the-counter oral contraceptives. But a simple screening through a provider can identify whether you are truly eligible or not.”

Irregular bleeding, headaches, dizziness, nausea, increased appetite, belly pain, cramps, or bloating are the most common side effects of Opill, the FDA said.

The Opill is a progestin-only birth control pill. Similar pills have been available in the United Kingdiom for about 2 years, often referred to as “mini pills” because they contain a single hormone. In contrast, prescription birth control pills in the United States and elsewhere contain more than one hormone, estrogen and progestin, to prevent pregnancy.

Prescription pill packs for combination contraception often feature a week of placebo pills without an active ingredient. While skipping a placebo pill might not make a difference in pregnancy prevention, Opill is different. Every pill in the packet will contain medication, Gray said. “So it’s important to take the pill the same time every day for it to be most effective.”

Even though this may mean one less visit to your doctor, Dr. Kaunitz hopes women will stay up to date on their other medical checkups. “One of our challenges as providers of care to women will be to encourage them to continue to receive important services, including cancer screening and vaccinations, even while they can initiate and continue hormonal contraception without contact with a provider.”

Just the beginning?

The American Medical Association hopes this approval signals more to come.

“While we applaud this move, the AMA continues to urge the FDA and HHS to consider a variety of oral contraceptive options for over-the-counter use,” the association, which has more than 250,000 doctor members, said in a statement. “It is important patients have options when choosing which type of birth control works best for them,”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the FDA’s decision will help many women. “We are glad that more patients will now be empowered to choose when and where they obtain a safe method of contraception without having to wait for a medical appointment or for a prescription to be filled,” Verda J. Hicks, MD, the group’s president, and Christopher M. Zahn, MD, interim chief executive officer, said in a statement.

“Allowing individuals to access birth control at their local pharmacy or drug store will eliminate some barriers,” they said.

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

This article was updated 7/13/23.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval today of the first birth control pill for women to be available without a prescription is being hailed by many as a long-needed development, but there remain questions to be resolved, including how much the drug will cost and how it will be used.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug, Opill, is expected to be available early next year, and its maker has yet to reveal a retail price. It is the same birth control pill that has been available by prescription for 50 years. But for the first time, women will be able to buy the contraception at a local pharmacy, other retail locations, or online without having to see a doctor first.

Likely to drive debate

Contraception in the United States is not without controversy. The FDA’s approval spurred reactions both for and against making hormonal birth control for women available without a prescription.

“It’s an exciting time, especially right now when reproductive rights are being curtailed in a lot of states. Giving people an additional option for contraception will change people’s lives,” said Beverly Gray, MD, division director of Women’s Community and Population Health at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.

“It’s a huge win for patients who need better access to contraception,” said Dr. Gray, who is also a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Women who want hormonal birth control but live in areas without convenient access to a doctor, women who cannot easily take time off of work to see a doctor and get a prescription filled, and women without insurance are examples of people who will benefit, she said.

The Catholic Medical Association, in contrast, expressed “deep concern and disappointment” after an FDA advisory committee’s unanimous vote on May 11 recommending the drug be available over the counter. In a statement after the vote, the group cited “extensive medical studies demonstrating the risks and adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives,” adding that “the social impact of [full approval] would be dramatic.”

But doctors largely disagreed.

“It is definitely a huge win for reproductive autonomy. I’m glad that the FDA is prioritizing patient safety and well-being over politics,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. and clinical professor in the University of California Davis department of obstetrics and gynecology. She said the FDA approved the over-the-counter version because the medication is safe.

While opponents like the Catholic Medical Association cite safety concerns and believe doctors should screen all women before prescribing hormonal contraception, Dr. Gray disagreed. “There’s a lot of evidence that patients can figure out if a progestin-only pill is right for them and safe for them. Medical professionals don’t have to be the gatekeepers for contraception,” she said.

Pricing unknown

Whether insurance companies will pay for Opill now that it will be available without a prescription remains unknown. For some medications, paying a copay through insurance can be less expensive than buying at a retail price.

“Although pricing issues will be relevant, the FDA’s decision will enhance women’s access to hormonal birth control,” said Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, a professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville.

The drugmaker, Perrigo, based in Ireland, has not yet announced how much the pill will cost. The price tag could affect how widely available this form of birth control is. The drug has been shown to be as much as 93% effective for pregnancy prevention. Perrigo says it plans to make the pill available at low or no cost to some women.

Caveats to consider

There are some women for whom hormonal contraceptives have always carried greater risks. For example, women who have breast cancer or a history of breast cancer should not use hormonal contraceptives, the FDA said in a news release announcing the approval. Women with other types of cancer should check with their doctors first, the agency noted.

Women who smoke, who take some medications to lower blood pressure, or who have migraines should also take caution, Dr. Cansino said. “People with migraines may not be suitable for over-the-counter oral contraceptives. But a simple screening through a provider can identify whether you are truly eligible or not.”

Irregular bleeding, headaches, dizziness, nausea, increased appetite, belly pain, cramps, or bloating are the most common side effects of Opill, the FDA said.

The Opill is a progestin-only birth control pill. Similar pills have been available in the United Kingdiom for about 2 years, often referred to as “mini pills” because they contain a single hormone. In contrast, prescription birth control pills in the United States and elsewhere contain more than one hormone, estrogen and progestin, to prevent pregnancy.

Prescription pill packs for combination contraception often feature a week of placebo pills without an active ingredient. While skipping a placebo pill might not make a difference in pregnancy prevention, Opill is different. Every pill in the packet will contain medication, Gray said. “So it’s important to take the pill the same time every day for it to be most effective.”

Even though this may mean one less visit to your doctor, Dr. Kaunitz hopes women will stay up to date on their other medical checkups. “One of our challenges as providers of care to women will be to encourage them to continue to receive important services, including cancer screening and vaccinations, even while they can initiate and continue hormonal contraception without contact with a provider.”

Just the beginning?

The American Medical Association hopes this approval signals more to come.

“While we applaud this move, the AMA continues to urge the FDA and HHS to consider a variety of oral contraceptive options for over-the-counter use,” the association, which has more than 250,000 doctor members, said in a statement. “It is important patients have options when choosing which type of birth control works best for them,”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the FDA’s decision will help many women. “We are glad that more patients will now be empowered to choose when and where they obtain a safe method of contraception without having to wait for a medical appointment or for a prescription to be filled,” Verda J. Hicks, MD, the group’s president, and Christopher M. Zahn, MD, interim chief executive officer, said in a statement.

“Allowing individuals to access birth control at their local pharmacy or drug store will eliminate some barriers,” they said.

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

This article was updated 7/13/23.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval today of the first birth control pill for women to be available without a prescription is being hailed by many as a long-needed development, but there remain questions to be resolved, including how much the drug will cost and how it will be used.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug, Opill, is expected to be available early next year, and its maker has yet to reveal a retail price. It is the same birth control pill that has been available by prescription for 50 years. But for the first time, women will be able to buy the contraception at a local pharmacy, other retail locations, or online without having to see a doctor first.

Likely to drive debate

Contraception in the United States is not without controversy. The FDA’s approval spurred reactions both for and against making hormonal birth control for women available without a prescription.

“It’s an exciting time, especially right now when reproductive rights are being curtailed in a lot of states. Giving people an additional option for contraception will change people’s lives,” said Beverly Gray, MD, division director of Women’s Community and Population Health at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.

“It’s a huge win for patients who need better access to contraception,” said Dr. Gray, who is also a spokesperson for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Women who want hormonal birth control but live in areas without convenient access to a doctor, women who cannot easily take time off of work to see a doctor and get a prescription filled, and women without insurance are examples of people who will benefit, she said.

The Catholic Medical Association, in contrast, expressed “deep concern and disappointment” after an FDA advisory committee’s unanimous vote on May 11 recommending the drug be available over the counter. In a statement after the vote, the group cited “extensive medical studies demonstrating the risks and adverse effects of hormonal contraceptives,” adding that “the social impact of [full approval] would be dramatic.”

But doctors largely disagreed.

“It is definitely a huge win for reproductive autonomy. I’m glad that the FDA is prioritizing patient safety and well-being over politics,” said Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH, an ob.gyn. and clinical professor in the University of California Davis department of obstetrics and gynecology. She said the FDA approved the over-the-counter version because the medication is safe.

While opponents like the Catholic Medical Association cite safety concerns and believe doctors should screen all women before prescribing hormonal contraception, Dr. Gray disagreed. “There’s a lot of evidence that patients can figure out if a progestin-only pill is right for them and safe for them. Medical professionals don’t have to be the gatekeepers for contraception,” she said.

Pricing unknown

Whether insurance companies will pay for Opill now that it will be available without a prescription remains unknown. For some medications, paying a copay through insurance can be less expensive than buying at a retail price.

“Although pricing issues will be relevant, the FDA’s decision will enhance women’s access to hormonal birth control,” said Andrew M. Kaunitz, MD, a professor and associate chairman in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville.

The drugmaker, Perrigo, based in Ireland, has not yet announced how much the pill will cost. The price tag could affect how widely available this form of birth control is. The drug has been shown to be as much as 93% effective for pregnancy prevention. Perrigo says it plans to make the pill available at low or no cost to some women.

Caveats to consider

There are some women for whom hormonal contraceptives have always carried greater risks. For example, women who have breast cancer or a history of breast cancer should not use hormonal contraceptives, the FDA said in a news release announcing the approval. Women with other types of cancer should check with their doctors first, the agency noted.

Women who smoke, who take some medications to lower blood pressure, or who have migraines should also take caution, Dr. Cansino said. “People with migraines may not be suitable for over-the-counter oral contraceptives. But a simple screening through a provider can identify whether you are truly eligible or not.”

Irregular bleeding, headaches, dizziness, nausea, increased appetite, belly pain, cramps, or bloating are the most common side effects of Opill, the FDA said.

The Opill is a progestin-only birth control pill. Similar pills have been available in the United Kingdiom for about 2 years, often referred to as “mini pills” because they contain a single hormone. In contrast, prescription birth control pills in the United States and elsewhere contain more than one hormone, estrogen and progestin, to prevent pregnancy.

Prescription pill packs for combination contraception often feature a week of placebo pills without an active ingredient. While skipping a placebo pill might not make a difference in pregnancy prevention, Opill is different. Every pill in the packet will contain medication, Gray said. “So it’s important to take the pill the same time every day for it to be most effective.”

Even though this may mean one less visit to your doctor, Dr. Kaunitz hopes women will stay up to date on their other medical checkups. “One of our challenges as providers of care to women will be to encourage them to continue to receive important services, including cancer screening and vaccinations, even while they can initiate and continue hormonal contraception without contact with a provider.”

Just the beginning?

The American Medical Association hopes this approval signals more to come.

“While we applaud this move, the AMA continues to urge the FDA and HHS to consider a variety of oral contraceptive options for over-the-counter use,” the association, which has more than 250,000 doctor members, said in a statement. “It is important patients have options when choosing which type of birth control works best for them,”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the FDA’s decision will help many women. “We are glad that more patients will now be empowered to choose when and where they obtain a safe method of contraception without having to wait for a medical appointment or for a prescription to be filled,” Verda J. Hicks, MD, the group’s president, and Christopher M. Zahn, MD, interim chief executive officer, said in a statement.

“Allowing individuals to access birth control at their local pharmacy or drug store will eliminate some barriers,” they said.

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

This article was updated 7/13/23.

Among adults with type 2 diabetes, the presence of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality and both macro- and microvascular complications, as well as increased mortality, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

PRISm occurs in approximately 10% of the general population and has been identified as a predictor of adverse health outcomes including cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality, Guochen Li, MD, of the Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.

“A growing number of studies have demonstrated that impaired lung function and type 2 diabetes could trigger shared pathophysiological injuries, such as microangiopathy and chronic inflammation,” they said, but the potential role of PRISm as an early predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been fully examined.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 20,047 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of adults aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The main exposure was lung function based on spirometry. PRISm was defined as predicted forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) less than 80%, with an FEV1/ forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of at least 0.70. Individuals with normal spirometry (defined as predicted FEV1 ≥ 80% with an FEV1/FVC ratio ≥ 0.70) served as controls.

The primary outcomes were major complications of type 2 diabetes including macrovascular events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary heart disease [CHD], ischemic stroke, and any type of stroke), microvascular events (diabetic retinopathy and diabetic kidney disease) and mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory).

Overall, 16.9% of study participants (3385 patients) had obstructive spirometry and 22.6% (4521 patients) had PRISm. Compared with individuals with normal spirometry, those with PRISm were more likely to be current smokers, obese, and living in economically disadvantaged areas. Individuals with PRISm also were significantly more likely to be long-term patients with diabetes who were taking glucose-lowering or lipid-lowering drugs (P < .001 for all).

The median follow-up for each of the type 2 diabetes complications and mortality was approximately 12 years. Over this time, 5.0% of patients developed incident MI, 1.3% developed unstable angina, 15.6% had CHD, 3.5% had an ischemic stroke, and 4.7% had any type of stroke. As for microvascular events, 7.8% developed diabetic retinopathy and 6.7% developed diabetic kidney disease. A total of 2588 patients died during the study period (15.1%), including 544 from cardiovascular disease and 319 from respiratory disease.

PRISm was significantly associated with increased risk of each of the complications and mortality types. These associations persisted after adjusting for lifestyle and other factors. The fully adjusted hazard ratios for PRISm versus normal spirometry were 1.23 for MI, 1.23 for unstable angina, 1.21 for CHD, 1.38 for ischemic stroke, 1.41 for any type of stroke, 1.31 for diabetic retinopathy, and 1.38 for diabetic kidney disease. Adjusted HRs for mortality were 1.34, 1.60, and 1.56 for all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, respectively.

The researchers also found that adding PRISm to an office-based risk score significantly improved the risk classification and predictive power for type 2 diabetes complications with the exception of unstable angina and mortality. They found little evidence for an association with sex, smoking, or PRISm duration and any mortality types. However, in subgroup analyses by age, sex, and duration of diabetes, PRISm remained associated with increased risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications, as well as mortality.

Potential mechanisms for the association between PRISm and diabetes complications include the role of insulin resistance in the exacerbation of lung damage in patients with type 2 diabetes, the increased rate of supplemental oxygen use among individuals with PRISm, and the increased prevalence of pulmonary artery enlargement in the PRISm subjects, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the prospective design, the homogeneous population of individuals primarily of British or Irish ancestry, and the exclusion of diabetic neuropathy from the analysis, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large cohort, use of professional spirometry, and relatively long follow-up. “The findings underscore the relevance of PRISm for prognostic classification in type 2 diabetes and its potential for optimizing prevention strategies in this condition,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Among adults with type 2 diabetes, the presence of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality and both macro- and microvascular complications, as well as increased mortality, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

PRISm occurs in approximately 10% of the general population and has been identified as a predictor of adverse health outcomes including cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality, Guochen Li, MD, of the Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.

“A growing number of studies have demonstrated that impaired lung function and type 2 diabetes could trigger shared pathophysiological injuries, such as microangiopathy and chronic inflammation,” they said, but the potential role of PRISm as an early predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been fully examined.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 20,047 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of adults aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The main exposure was lung function based on spirometry. PRISm was defined as predicted forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) less than 80%, with an FEV1/ forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of at least 0.70. Individuals with normal spirometry (defined as predicted FEV1 ≥ 80% with an FEV1/FVC ratio ≥ 0.70) served as controls.

The primary outcomes were major complications of type 2 diabetes including macrovascular events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary heart disease [CHD], ischemic stroke, and any type of stroke), microvascular events (diabetic retinopathy and diabetic kidney disease) and mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory).

Overall, 16.9% of study participants (3385 patients) had obstructive spirometry and 22.6% (4521 patients) had PRISm. Compared with individuals with normal spirometry, those with PRISm were more likely to be current smokers, obese, and living in economically disadvantaged areas. Individuals with PRISm also were significantly more likely to be long-term patients with diabetes who were taking glucose-lowering or lipid-lowering drugs (P < .001 for all).

The median follow-up for each of the type 2 diabetes complications and mortality was approximately 12 years. Over this time, 5.0% of patients developed incident MI, 1.3% developed unstable angina, 15.6% had CHD, 3.5% had an ischemic stroke, and 4.7% had any type of stroke. As for microvascular events, 7.8% developed diabetic retinopathy and 6.7% developed diabetic kidney disease. A total of 2588 patients died during the study period (15.1%), including 544 from cardiovascular disease and 319 from respiratory disease.

PRISm was significantly associated with increased risk of each of the complications and mortality types. These associations persisted after adjusting for lifestyle and other factors. The fully adjusted hazard ratios for PRISm versus normal spirometry were 1.23 for MI, 1.23 for unstable angina, 1.21 for CHD, 1.38 for ischemic stroke, 1.41 for any type of stroke, 1.31 for diabetic retinopathy, and 1.38 for diabetic kidney disease. Adjusted HRs for mortality were 1.34, 1.60, and 1.56 for all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, respectively.

The researchers also found that adding PRISm to an office-based risk score significantly improved the risk classification and predictive power for type 2 diabetes complications with the exception of unstable angina and mortality. They found little evidence for an association with sex, smoking, or PRISm duration and any mortality types. However, in subgroup analyses by age, sex, and duration of diabetes, PRISm remained associated with increased risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications, as well as mortality.

Potential mechanisms for the association between PRISm and diabetes complications include the role of insulin resistance in the exacerbation of lung damage in patients with type 2 diabetes, the increased rate of supplemental oxygen use among individuals with PRISm, and the increased prevalence of pulmonary artery enlargement in the PRISm subjects, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the prospective design, the homogeneous population of individuals primarily of British or Irish ancestry, and the exclusion of diabetic neuropathy from the analysis, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large cohort, use of professional spirometry, and relatively long follow-up. “The findings underscore the relevance of PRISm for prognostic classification in type 2 diabetes and its potential for optimizing prevention strategies in this condition,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Among adults with type 2 diabetes, the presence of preserved ratio impaired spirometry (PRISm) was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality and both macro- and microvascular complications, as well as increased mortality, based on data from more than 20,000 individuals.

PRISm occurs in approximately 10% of the general population and has been identified as a predictor of adverse health outcomes including cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality, Guochen Li, MD, of the Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China, and colleagues wrote.

“A growing number of studies have demonstrated that impaired lung function and type 2 diabetes could trigger shared pathophysiological injuries, such as microangiopathy and chronic inflammation,” they said, but the potential role of PRISm as an early predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes has not been fully examined.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 20,047 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank, a population-based cohort of adults aged 37-73 years recruited between 2006 and 2010.

The main exposure was lung function based on spirometry. PRISm was defined as predicted forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) less than 80%, with an FEV1/ forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio of at least 0.70. Individuals with normal spirometry (defined as predicted FEV1 ≥ 80% with an FEV1/FVC ratio ≥ 0.70) served as controls.

The primary outcomes were major complications of type 2 diabetes including macrovascular events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary heart disease [CHD], ischemic stroke, and any type of stroke), microvascular events (diabetic retinopathy and diabetic kidney disease) and mortality (all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory).

Overall, 16.9% of study participants (3385 patients) had obstructive spirometry and 22.6% (4521 patients) had PRISm. Compared with individuals with normal spirometry, those with PRISm were more likely to be current smokers, obese, and living in economically disadvantaged areas. Individuals with PRISm also were significantly more likely to be long-term patients with diabetes who were taking glucose-lowering or lipid-lowering drugs (P < .001 for all).

The median follow-up for each of the type 2 diabetes complications and mortality was approximately 12 years. Over this time, 5.0% of patients developed incident MI, 1.3% developed unstable angina, 15.6% had CHD, 3.5% had an ischemic stroke, and 4.7% had any type of stroke. As for microvascular events, 7.8% developed diabetic retinopathy and 6.7% developed diabetic kidney disease. A total of 2588 patients died during the study period (15.1%), including 544 from cardiovascular disease and 319 from respiratory disease.

PRISm was significantly associated with increased risk of each of the complications and mortality types. These associations persisted after adjusting for lifestyle and other factors. The fully adjusted hazard ratios for PRISm versus normal spirometry were 1.23 for MI, 1.23 for unstable angina, 1.21 for CHD, 1.38 for ischemic stroke, 1.41 for any type of stroke, 1.31 for diabetic retinopathy, and 1.38 for diabetic kidney disease. Adjusted HRs for mortality were 1.34, 1.60, and 1.56 for all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, respectively.

The researchers also found that adding PRISm to an office-based risk score significantly improved the risk classification and predictive power for type 2 diabetes complications with the exception of unstable angina and mortality. They found little evidence for an association with sex, smoking, or PRISm duration and any mortality types. However, in subgroup analyses by age, sex, and duration of diabetes, PRISm remained associated with increased risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications, as well as mortality.

Potential mechanisms for the association between PRISm and diabetes complications include the role of insulin resistance in the exacerbation of lung damage in patients with type 2 diabetes, the increased rate of supplemental oxygen use among individuals with PRISm, and the increased prevalence of pulmonary artery enlargement in the PRISm subjects, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the prospective design, the homogeneous population of individuals primarily of British or Irish ancestry, and the exclusion of diabetic neuropathy from the analysis, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large cohort, use of professional spirometry, and relatively long follow-up. “The findings underscore the relevance of PRISm for prognostic classification in type 2 diabetes and its potential for optimizing prevention strategies in this condition,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

Following reports that the European Medicines Agency is looking into instances of suicide or self-harm after patients took the weight loss drugs semaglutide or liraglutide, the manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, issued a statement to this news organization in which it says it “remains confident in the benefit risk profile of the products and remains committed to ensuring patient safety.”

U.S. experts say they haven’t personally seen this adverse effect in any patients except for one isolated case. An increase in suicidal ideation, particularly among younger people, has been reported following bariatric surgery for weight loss.

In the United States, the two drugs – both GLP-1 agonists – already come with a warning about the potential for these adverse effects on the branded versions approved for weight loss, Wegovy and Saxenda. (Years earlier, both drugs, marketed as Ozempic and Victoza, were also approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes.)

Of more than 1,200 reports of adverse reactions with semaglutide, 60 cases of suicidal ideation and 7 suicide attempts have been reported since 2018, according to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) public database. For liraglutide, there were 71 cases of suicidal ideation, 28 suicide attempts, and 25 completed suicides out of more than 35,000 reports of adverse reactions.

The FAERS website cautions users that the data may be duplicated or incomplete, that rates of occurrence cannot be established using the data, that reports have not been verified, and that the existence of a report cannot establish causation.

The EMA is looking into about 150 reports of possible cases of self-injury and suicidal thoughts, according to a press release from the agency.

“It is not yet clear whether the reported cases are linked to the medicines themselves or to the patients’ underlying conditions or other factors,” it says. The medicines are widely used in the European Union, according to the press release.

The review of Ozempic, Saxenda, and Wegovy, which started on July 3, 2023, has been extended to include other GLP-1 receptor agonists, which include dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. This review is expected to conclude in November 2023.

In a statement, Novo Nordisk did not directly dispute a potential link between the drugs and suicidal ideation.

“In the U.S., FDA requires medications for chronic weight management that work on the central nervous system, including Wegovy and Saxenda, to carry a warning about suicidal behavior and ideation,” the statement indicates. “This event had been reported in clinical trials with other weight management products.”

It adds: “Novo Nordisk is continuously performing surveillance of the data from ongoing clinical trials and real-world use of its products and collaborates closely with the authorities to ensure patient safety and adequate information to healthcare professionals.”
 

Important to know the denominator

“What’s important to know is the denominator,” said Holly Lofton, MD, a clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine and the director of the medical weight management program at NYU Langone, New York. “It needs a denominator with the total population on the medication so we can determine if that’s really a significant risk.”

Dr. Lofton described an isolated, anecdotal case of a patient who had no history of depression or mental health problems but developed suicidal thoughts after taking Saxenda for several months. In that case, the 25-year-old was experiencing problems in a personal relationship and with social media.

Two other weight loss specialists contacted by this news organization had not had patients who had experienced suicidal ideation with the drugs. “These are not very common in practice,” Dr. Lofton said in an interview.

The U.S. prescribing information for Saxenda, which contains liraglutide and has been approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise for chronic weight management, recommends monitoring for the emergence of depression and suicidal thoughts. In the clinical trials, 6 of the 3,384 patients who took the drug reported suicidal ideation; none of the 1,941 patients who received placebo did so, according to the FDA.

Similarly, the U.S. prescribing information for Wegovy, which contains semaglutide, recommends monitoring for the emergence of suicidal thoughts or depression, but this recommendation was based on clinical trials of other weight management products. The prescribing information for Ozempic, the brand name for semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, does not include this recommendation.
 

Is it the weight loss, rather than the meds? Seen with bariatric surgery too

Speculating what the link, if any, might be, Dr. Lofton suggested dopamine release could be playing a role. Small trials in humans as well as animal studies hint at a blunting of dopamine responses to usual triggers – including addictive substances and possibly food – that may also affect mood.

Young people (aged 18-34) who undergo bariatric surgery are at an increased risk of suicide during follow-up compared to their peers who don’t have surgery. And a study found an increase in events involving self-harm after bariatric surgery, especially among patients who already had a mental health disorder.

For a patient who derives comfort from food, not being able to eat in response to a stressful event may lead that patient to act out in more serious ways, according to Dr. Lofton. “That’s why, again, surgical follow-up is so important and their presurgical psychiatric evaluation is so important.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tandem Mobi insulin pump for people with diabetes aged 6 years or older.

The product is half the size of the company’s t:slim X2 and is now the smallest of the commercially available durable tubed pumps. It is fully controllable from a mobile app through a user’s compatible iPhone.

Features of the Mobi include a 200-unit insulin cartridge and an on-pump button that can be used instead of the phone for bolusing insulin. The device can be clipped to clothing or worn on-body with an adhesive sleeve that is sold separately.

The Mobi is compatible with all existing Tandem-branded infusion sets manufactured by the Convatec Group, and there is a new 5-inch tubing option made just for the Tandem Mobi.

The Mobi is part of a hybrid-closed loop automated delivery system, along with the current Control-IQ technology and a compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The CGM sensor predicts glucose values 30 minutes ahead and adjusts insulin delivery every 5 minutes to prevent highs and lows. Users must still manually bolus for meals. The system can deliver automatic correction boluses for up to 1 hour to prevent hyperglycemia.

Limited release of the Tandem Mobi is expected in late 2023, followed by full commercial availability in early 2024.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tandem Mobi insulin pump for people with diabetes aged 6 years or older.

The product is half the size of the company’s t:slim X2 and is now the smallest of the commercially available durable tubed pumps. It is fully controllable from a mobile app through a user’s compatible iPhone.

Features of the Mobi include a 200-unit insulin cartridge and an on-pump button that can be used instead of the phone for bolusing insulin. The device can be clipped to clothing or worn on-body with an adhesive sleeve that is sold separately.

The Mobi is compatible with all existing Tandem-branded infusion sets manufactured by the Convatec Group, and there is a new 5-inch tubing option made just for the Tandem Mobi.

The Mobi is part of a hybrid-closed loop automated delivery system, along with the current Control-IQ technology and a compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The CGM sensor predicts glucose values 30 minutes ahead and adjusts insulin delivery every 5 minutes to prevent highs and lows. Users must still manually bolus for meals. The system can deliver automatic correction boluses for up to 1 hour to prevent hyperglycemia.

Limited release of the Tandem Mobi is expected in late 2023, followed by full commercial availability in early 2024.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tandem Mobi insulin pump for people with diabetes aged 6 years or older.

The product is half the size of the company’s t:slim X2 and is now the smallest of the commercially available durable tubed pumps. It is fully controllable from a mobile app through a user’s compatible iPhone.

Features of the Mobi include a 200-unit insulin cartridge and an on-pump button that can be used instead of the phone for bolusing insulin. The device can be clipped to clothing or worn on-body with an adhesive sleeve that is sold separately.

The Mobi is compatible with all existing Tandem-branded infusion sets manufactured by the Convatec Group, and there is a new 5-inch tubing option made just for the Tandem Mobi.

The Mobi is part of a hybrid-closed loop automated delivery system, along with the current Control-IQ technology and a compatible continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The CGM sensor predicts glucose values 30 minutes ahead and adjusts insulin delivery every 5 minutes to prevent highs and lows. Users must still manually bolus for meals. The system can deliver automatic correction boluses for up to 1 hour to prevent hyperglycemia.

Limited release of the Tandem Mobi is expected in late 2023, followed by full commercial availability in early 2024.
 

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

Findings from a recent study indicate that the less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high co-pays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more they adhere to taking these medications.

The study, led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from University of Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Patient data from Clinformatics Data Mart, a health insurance claims database, was analyzed for the study. The information for 90,041 adults from the United States who had commercial and Medicare health insurance, and who started taking a GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor between 2014 and 2020 was reviewed. Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.

The primary outcome showed patients with a lower drug co-pay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher co-pay. These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.

After full adjustments were made and after the 12 months, patients with a high co-pay of $50 per month or more were 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a co-pay of less than $10 per month for these agents.

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including the inability to exclude residual confounding, uncertain generalizability for those without health insurance or with public insurance and possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities. Additionally, this study did not have information on patients’ preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence, and could not assess how co-payments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, or other factors including possible price inflation.

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an adviser to several drug companies including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

Findings from a recent study indicate that the less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high co-pays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more they adhere to taking these medications.

The study, led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from University of Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Patient data from Clinformatics Data Mart, a health insurance claims database, was analyzed for the study. The information for 90,041 adults from the United States who had commercial and Medicare health insurance, and who started taking a GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor between 2014 and 2020 was reviewed. Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.

The primary outcome showed patients with a lower drug co-pay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher co-pay. These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.

After full adjustments were made and after the 12 months, patients with a high co-pay of $50 per month or more were 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a co-pay of less than $10 per month for these agents.

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including the inability to exclude residual confounding, uncertain generalizability for those without health insurance or with public insurance and possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities. Additionally, this study did not have information on patients’ preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence, and could not assess how co-payments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, or other factors including possible price inflation.

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an adviser to several drug companies including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

Findings from a recent study indicate that the less U.S. patients pay out of pocket for drugs that often have high co-pays, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, the more they adhere to taking these medications.

The study, led by Utibe R. Essien, MD, from University of California, Los Angeles, and Balvindar Singh, MD, PhD, from University of Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

Patient data from Clinformatics Data Mart, a health insurance claims database, was analyzed for the study. The information for 90,041 adults from the United States who had commercial and Medicare health insurance, and who started taking a GLP-1 agonist or SGLT2 inhibitor between 2014 and 2020 was reviewed. Participants had type 2 diabetes, heart failure, or both.

The primary outcome showed patients with a lower drug co-pay had significantly higher odds of 12-month adherence to GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, compared with those with a higher co-pay. These differences persisted after controlling for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates.

After full adjustments were made and after the 12 months, patients with a high co-pay of $50 per month or more were 53% less likely to adhere to an SGLT2 inhibitor and 32% less likely to adhere to a GLP-1 agonist, compared with patients with a co-pay of less than $10 per month for these agents.

“Lowering high out-of-pocket prescription costs may be key to improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and advancing overall quality of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure,” the authors conclude.

The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including the inability to exclude residual confounding, uncertain generalizability for those without health insurance or with public insurance and possible misclassifications of type 2 diabetes and heart failure diagnoses or medical comorbidities. Additionally, this study did not have information on patients’ preferences associated with medication use, including specific reasons for poor adherence, and could not assess how co-payments influenced initial prescription receipt or abandonment at the pharmacy, or other factors including possible price inflation.

The study received no commercial funding. One author (not a lead author) is an adviser to several drug companies including ones that market SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists.

A smartphone-based app designed to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to adults with type 2 diabetes received marketing approval as a class II medical device from the Food and Drug Administration on July 10, becoming the first digital behavioral therapeutic device for people with diabetes to receive this designation for U.S. patients.
 

Better Therapeutics representatives said that the app, formerly known as BT-001, will be called AspyreRX, with U.S. sales planned to launch in October-December 2023.

The app will be available to patients exclusively by prescription, with a planned 90-day use duration and an option for a second 90-day prescription. A company official said the price per prescription will be about $500-800, although this is not yet finalized. The app is intended for use in concert with the conventional pillars of glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes: lifestyle modification and treatment with antidiabetes medications.

Senior staff members of Better Therapeutics acknowledged the critical need for an education program, which they will now launch for clinicians, payers, and patients to get across the message of the potential benefit and safety associated with using the CBT app. Their initial marketing will target patients with type 2 diabetes and poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c levels in five to six U.S. regions with high numbers of these patients. The company will also attempt to make the app available through the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and try to secure coverage by Medicare and commercial health-insurance providers.
 

Approval based on pivotal trial results

The FDA approval focused on data collected in the BT-001 randomized, controlled trial, which included 669 U.S. adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Results, published in 2022 in Diabetes Care, showed that after 90 days, people using the app had an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.39 percentage points, compared with control patients who didn’t use the app, the primary endpoint. Use of the app also appeared safe.

Subsequent meeting presentations of study findings showed that A1c-lowering linked with app use was durable during continued use for a total of 180 days, that the effectiveness of the app in helping to lower A1c levels was “dose dependent” relative to the number of lessons a person completed, and that using the app significantly linked with a reduced need for intensified glycemic control through added medications.

Another finding of the extended-use phase of the study was that 81% of patients assigned to the app-using group continued to regularly use the app after 180 days, a level of durable engagement by patients that “exceeded our expectations,” said Diane Gomez-Thinnes, chief commercial officer of Better Therapeutics, during a press conference.

The company plans to tweak the app prior to its launch based on additional analyses of results from the pivotal study to further improve patient engagement and app ease of use. The company is also planning to expand the range of smartphones that can support the app, although about 90%-95% of U.S. smartphones have this capability.

Better Therapeutics is also actively developing and testing other modifications to the basic CBT app to make it usable by people with other cardiometabolic disorders such as hypertension, obesity, and fatty liver disease.

The BT-001 study was funded by Better Therapeutics.

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

A smartphone-based app designed to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to adults with type 2 diabetes received marketing approval as a class II medical device from the Food and Drug Administration on July 10, becoming the first digital behavioral therapeutic device for people with diabetes to receive this designation for U.S. patients.
 

Better Therapeutics representatives said that the app, formerly known as BT-001, will be called AspyreRX, with U.S. sales planned to launch in October-December 2023.

The app will be available to patients exclusively by prescription, with a planned 90-day use duration and an option for a second 90-day prescription. A company official said the price per prescription will be about $500-800, although this is not yet finalized. The app is intended for use in concert with the conventional pillars of glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes: lifestyle modification and treatment with antidiabetes medications.

Senior staff members of Better Therapeutics acknowledged the critical need for an education program, which they will now launch for clinicians, payers, and patients to get across the message of the potential benefit and safety associated with using the CBT app. Their initial marketing will target patients with type 2 diabetes and poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c levels in five to six U.S. regions with high numbers of these patients. The company will also attempt to make the app available through the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and try to secure coverage by Medicare and commercial health-insurance providers.
 

Approval based on pivotal trial results

The FDA approval focused on data collected in the BT-001 randomized, controlled trial, which included 669 U.S. adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Results, published in 2022 in Diabetes Care, showed that after 90 days, people using the app had an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.39 percentage points, compared with control patients who didn’t use the app, the primary endpoint. Use of the app also appeared safe.

Subsequent meeting presentations of study findings showed that A1c-lowering linked with app use was durable during continued use for a total of 180 days, that the effectiveness of the app in helping to lower A1c levels was “dose dependent” relative to the number of lessons a person completed, and that using the app significantly linked with a reduced need for intensified glycemic control through added medications.

Another finding of the extended-use phase of the study was that 81% of patients assigned to the app-using group continued to regularly use the app after 180 days, a level of durable engagement by patients that “exceeded our expectations,” said Diane Gomez-Thinnes, chief commercial officer of Better Therapeutics, during a press conference.

The company plans to tweak the app prior to its launch based on additional analyses of results from the pivotal study to further improve patient engagement and app ease of use. The company is also planning to expand the range of smartphones that can support the app, although about 90%-95% of U.S. smartphones have this capability.

Better Therapeutics is also actively developing and testing other modifications to the basic CBT app to make it usable by people with other cardiometabolic disorders such as hypertension, obesity, and fatty liver disease.

The BT-001 study was funded by Better Therapeutics.

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

A smartphone-based app designed to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) to adults with type 2 diabetes received marketing approval as a class II medical device from the Food and Drug Administration on July 10, becoming the first digital behavioral therapeutic device for people with diabetes to receive this designation for U.S. patients.
 

Better Therapeutics representatives said that the app, formerly known as BT-001, will be called AspyreRX, with U.S. sales planned to launch in October-December 2023.

The app will be available to patients exclusively by prescription, with a planned 90-day use duration and an option for a second 90-day prescription. A company official said the price per prescription will be about $500-800, although this is not yet finalized. The app is intended for use in concert with the conventional pillars of glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes: lifestyle modification and treatment with antidiabetes medications.

Senior staff members of Better Therapeutics acknowledged the critical need for an education program, which they will now launch for clinicians, payers, and patients to get across the message of the potential benefit and safety associated with using the CBT app. Their initial marketing will target patients with type 2 diabetes and poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c levels in five to six U.S. regions with high numbers of these patients. The company will also attempt to make the app available through the Department of Veterans Affairs health system and try to secure coverage by Medicare and commercial health-insurance providers.
 

Approval based on pivotal trial results

The FDA approval focused on data collected in the BT-001 randomized, controlled trial, which included 669 U.S. adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Results, published in 2022 in Diabetes Care, showed that after 90 days, people using the app had an average incremental reduction in A1c of 0.39 percentage points, compared with control patients who didn’t use the app, the primary endpoint. Use of the app also appeared safe.

Subsequent meeting presentations of study findings showed that A1c-lowering linked with app use was durable during continued use for a total of 180 days, that the effectiveness of the app in helping to lower A1c levels was “dose dependent” relative to the number of lessons a person completed, and that using the app significantly linked with a reduced need for intensified glycemic control through added medications.

Another finding of the extended-use phase of the study was that 81% of patients assigned to the app-using group continued to regularly use the app after 180 days, a level of durable engagement by patients that “exceeded our expectations,” said Diane Gomez-Thinnes, chief commercial officer of Better Therapeutics, during a press conference.

The company plans to tweak the app prior to its launch based on additional analyses of results from the pivotal study to further improve patient engagement and app ease of use. The company is also planning to expand the range of smartphones that can support the app, although about 90%-95% of U.S. smartphones have this capability.

Better Therapeutics is also actively developing and testing other modifications to the basic CBT app to make it usable by people with other cardiometabolic disorders such as hypertension, obesity, and fatty liver disease.

The BT-001 study was funded by Better Therapeutics.

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

SAN DIEGO – The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) follow-up study has entered a new phase, focusing on a relatively recent phenomenon: aging in type 1 diabetes.

New funding for 2022-2027 for the DCCT long-term observational follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) will go toward investigating aspects of type 1 diabetes that are associated with aging and are also common in type 2 diabetes, including cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, and sleep apnea.

The original randomized DCCT clinical trial results, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, proved that early intensive glycemic control was the key to preventing or slowing the progression of long-term eye, kidney, and nerve complications of type 1 diabetes. Subsequently, EDIC has yielded many more major findings including that early tight glycemic control also reduces cardiovascular risk and prolongs survival in type 1 diabetes.

And although the phenomenon of metabolic memory initially seen in EDIC means that early glycemic control is important, subsequent EDIC data also have suggested that it is never too late to initiate intensive glycemic control, speakers emphasized during a special symposium commemorating 40 years since the start of DCCT, held during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. As with the 30-year DCCT/EDIC commemorative symposium held in 2013, local study participants were in the audience and were acknowledged with long applause.

Together, DCCT and EDIC – both funded by the National Institutes of Health at 27 sites in the United States and Canada – have changed the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and continue to inform clinical practice. Prior to the DCCT, between 1930 and 1970, about a third of people with type 1 diabetes developed vision loss and one in five experienced kidney failure and/or myocardial infarction. Stroke and amputation were also common, DCCT/EDIC chair David M. Nathan, MD, said while introducing the symposium.

“All of the advances in care of type 1 diabetes have developed because this study demonstrated that it was important – continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), new insulins, better [insulin] pumps. ... I think the most profound finding is that mortality in our intensively treated cohort is the same as in the general population. That says it all,” Dr. Nathan said in an interview.

And now, “what we still have yet to contribute is what happens to type 1 diabetes as people get older,” added Dr. Nathan, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
 

‘Something that heretofore none of us could have imagined’

The 1,441 DCCT participants had a mean age of 27 years at baseline in 1983, when they were randomized to intensive insulin therapy or usual care. The 1,375 participants (96%) who continued into EDIC in 1994 were an average of 35 years old at that point, when the usual care group was taught intensive glycemic management and all participants returned to their personal health care teams. The 1,075 participants in EDIC today are an average age of 63 years.

Only 11 participants had died at the start of EDIC, and just 250 (17%) have died as of 2023, said study coordinator cochair Gayle Lorenzi, RN, who is a certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of California, San Diego.

“DCCT/EDIC because of its longevity represents a unique opportunity to explore aging in long duration of type 1 diabetes, something that heretofore none of us could have imagined, especially for those of you in the audience who started your careers in the 70s and 80s,” Ms. Lorenzi commented.

About 36% of the cohort now has overweight and 40% have obesity, mirroring the general population. And they now have a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.3%.

According to Barbara H. Braffett, PhD, co–principal investigator at the DCCT/EDIC data coordinating center: “The EDIC study is now shifting its focus during the next 5 years to understand the clinical course of type 1 diabetes in the setting of advancing duration and age, as well as increasing adiposity, which has progressively affected individuals with type 1 diabetes and has potential long-term adverse consequences.”

Dr. Braffett outlined the new study approaches added in 2022-2027. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, two-dimensional Doppler echocardiography, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity will be used to quantify functional and structural changes central to heart failure.

Dr. Nathan commented that, although enough cardiovascular events were available in EDIC by 2006 to demonstrate a significant 58% reduction in the intensive therapy group, “now we can start looking at the aging heart. We have a bunch of great cardiologists working with us who will be guiding us on measuring everything.”

Fatty liver disease in the setting of increasing adiposity will also be investigated using transient elastography (FibroScan) and the Fibrosis-4 index, a quantification of liver enzymes and platelet count.

Dr. Nathan noted that the study participants have had “this kind of funny metabolic milieu in their liver for decades. They don’t make insulin in their pancreas, and therefore, the insulin they get is peripheral and then it goes to their liver. Well, what does that do to them?”

Participants will also complete three symptom questionnaires assessing obstructive sleep apnea, aimed at guiding future sleep studies in those found to be at high risk, Dr. Braffett said.
 

DCCT/EDIC over 40 years: ‘Incredibly complete picture’

As of 2023, the DCCT/EDIC participants have been studied for longer than 60% of their lifespans and for over 80% of their diabetes duration, Dr. Braffett noted.

During the EDIC 2017-2022 cycle, Dr. Braffett and other speakers summarized, prior EDIC efforts had focused on aspects of cognitive function, physical function, and cheiroarthropathy.

Other DCCT/EDIC studies examined the relationship of A1c and diabetes duration in cardiovascular disease risk, the association of microvascular complications with the risk of cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors, and the risk of severe hypoglycemia over the first 30 years of DCCT/EDIC follow-up.

Moreover, the longitudinal eye and kidney assessments over the 40 years have informed screening guidelines for retinopathy and urinary albumin.

Dr. Nathan said: “Today, the number with horrible complications is very few, but we haven’t erased complications entirely. ... We have this incredibly complete picture of type 1 diabetes that allows us to explore everything. We welcome people to come to us with ideas. That’s the value of this research.”

Dr. Nathan, Ms. Lorenzi, and Dr. Braffett reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) follow-up study has entered a new phase, focusing on a relatively recent phenomenon: aging in type 1 diabetes.

New funding for 2022-2027 for the DCCT long-term observational follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) will go toward investigating aspects of type 1 diabetes that are associated with aging and are also common in type 2 diabetes, including cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, and sleep apnea.

The original randomized DCCT clinical trial results, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, proved that early intensive glycemic control was the key to preventing or slowing the progression of long-term eye, kidney, and nerve complications of type 1 diabetes. Subsequently, EDIC has yielded many more major findings including that early tight glycemic control also reduces cardiovascular risk and prolongs survival in type 1 diabetes.

And although the phenomenon of metabolic memory initially seen in EDIC means that early glycemic control is important, subsequent EDIC data also have suggested that it is never too late to initiate intensive glycemic control, speakers emphasized during a special symposium commemorating 40 years since the start of DCCT, held during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. As with the 30-year DCCT/EDIC commemorative symposium held in 2013, local study participants were in the audience and were acknowledged with long applause.

Together, DCCT and EDIC – both funded by the National Institutes of Health at 27 sites in the United States and Canada – have changed the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and continue to inform clinical practice. Prior to the DCCT, between 1930 and 1970, about a third of people with type 1 diabetes developed vision loss and one in five experienced kidney failure and/or myocardial infarction. Stroke and amputation were also common, DCCT/EDIC chair David M. Nathan, MD, said while introducing the symposium.

“All of the advances in care of type 1 diabetes have developed because this study demonstrated that it was important – continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), new insulins, better [insulin] pumps. ... I think the most profound finding is that mortality in our intensively treated cohort is the same as in the general population. That says it all,” Dr. Nathan said in an interview.

And now, “what we still have yet to contribute is what happens to type 1 diabetes as people get older,” added Dr. Nathan, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
 

‘Something that heretofore none of us could have imagined’

The 1,441 DCCT participants had a mean age of 27 years at baseline in 1983, when they were randomized to intensive insulin therapy or usual care. The 1,375 participants (96%) who continued into EDIC in 1994 were an average of 35 years old at that point, when the usual care group was taught intensive glycemic management and all participants returned to their personal health care teams. The 1,075 participants in EDIC today are an average age of 63 years.

Only 11 participants had died at the start of EDIC, and just 250 (17%) have died as of 2023, said study coordinator cochair Gayle Lorenzi, RN, who is a certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of California, San Diego.

“DCCT/EDIC because of its longevity represents a unique opportunity to explore aging in long duration of type 1 diabetes, something that heretofore none of us could have imagined, especially for those of you in the audience who started your careers in the 70s and 80s,” Ms. Lorenzi commented.

About 36% of the cohort now has overweight and 40% have obesity, mirroring the general population. And they now have a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.3%.

According to Barbara H. Braffett, PhD, co–principal investigator at the DCCT/EDIC data coordinating center: “The EDIC study is now shifting its focus during the next 5 years to understand the clinical course of type 1 diabetes in the setting of advancing duration and age, as well as increasing adiposity, which has progressively affected individuals with type 1 diabetes and has potential long-term adverse consequences.”

Dr. Braffett outlined the new study approaches added in 2022-2027. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, two-dimensional Doppler echocardiography, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity will be used to quantify functional and structural changes central to heart failure.

Dr. Nathan commented that, although enough cardiovascular events were available in EDIC by 2006 to demonstrate a significant 58% reduction in the intensive therapy group, “now we can start looking at the aging heart. We have a bunch of great cardiologists working with us who will be guiding us on measuring everything.”

Fatty liver disease in the setting of increasing adiposity will also be investigated using transient elastography (FibroScan) and the Fibrosis-4 index, a quantification of liver enzymes and platelet count.

Dr. Nathan noted that the study participants have had “this kind of funny metabolic milieu in their liver for decades. They don’t make insulin in their pancreas, and therefore, the insulin they get is peripheral and then it goes to their liver. Well, what does that do to them?”

Participants will also complete three symptom questionnaires assessing obstructive sleep apnea, aimed at guiding future sleep studies in those found to be at high risk, Dr. Braffett said.
 

DCCT/EDIC over 40 years: ‘Incredibly complete picture’

As of 2023, the DCCT/EDIC participants have been studied for longer than 60% of their lifespans and for over 80% of their diabetes duration, Dr. Braffett noted.

During the EDIC 2017-2022 cycle, Dr. Braffett and other speakers summarized, prior EDIC efforts had focused on aspects of cognitive function, physical function, and cheiroarthropathy.

Other DCCT/EDIC studies examined the relationship of A1c and diabetes duration in cardiovascular disease risk, the association of microvascular complications with the risk of cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors, and the risk of severe hypoglycemia over the first 30 years of DCCT/EDIC follow-up.

Moreover, the longitudinal eye and kidney assessments over the 40 years have informed screening guidelines for retinopathy and urinary albumin.

Dr. Nathan said: “Today, the number with horrible complications is very few, but we haven’t erased complications entirely. ... We have this incredibly complete picture of type 1 diabetes that allows us to explore everything. We welcome people to come to us with ideas. That’s the value of this research.”

Dr. Nathan, Ms. Lorenzi, and Dr. Braffett reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – The landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) follow-up study has entered a new phase, focusing on a relatively recent phenomenon: aging in type 1 diabetes.

New funding for 2022-2027 for the DCCT long-term observational follow-up study, the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) will go toward investigating aspects of type 1 diabetes that are associated with aging and are also common in type 2 diabetes, including cardiovascular disease, fatty liver disease, and sleep apnea.

The original randomized DCCT clinical trial results, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine, proved that early intensive glycemic control was the key to preventing or slowing the progression of long-term eye, kidney, and nerve complications of type 1 diabetes. Subsequently, EDIC has yielded many more major findings including that early tight glycemic control also reduces cardiovascular risk and prolongs survival in type 1 diabetes.

And although the phenomenon of metabolic memory initially seen in EDIC means that early glycemic control is important, subsequent EDIC data also have suggested that it is never too late to initiate intensive glycemic control, speakers emphasized during a special symposium commemorating 40 years since the start of DCCT, held during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association. As with the 30-year DCCT/EDIC commemorative symposium held in 2013, local study participants were in the audience and were acknowledged with long applause.

Together, DCCT and EDIC – both funded by the National Institutes of Health at 27 sites in the United States and Canada – have changed the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes and continue to inform clinical practice. Prior to the DCCT, between 1930 and 1970, about a third of people with type 1 diabetes developed vision loss and one in five experienced kidney failure and/or myocardial infarction. Stroke and amputation were also common, DCCT/EDIC chair David M. Nathan, MD, said while introducing the symposium.

“All of the advances in care of type 1 diabetes have developed because this study demonstrated that it was important – continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), new insulins, better [insulin] pumps. ... I think the most profound finding is that mortality in our intensively treated cohort is the same as in the general population. That says it all,” Dr. Nathan said in an interview.

And now, “what we still have yet to contribute is what happens to type 1 diabetes as people get older,” added Dr. Nathan, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston.
 

‘Something that heretofore none of us could have imagined’

The 1,441 DCCT participants had a mean age of 27 years at baseline in 1983, when they were randomized to intensive insulin therapy or usual care. The 1,375 participants (96%) who continued into EDIC in 1994 were an average of 35 years old at that point, when the usual care group was taught intensive glycemic management and all participants returned to their personal health care teams. The 1,075 participants in EDIC today are an average age of 63 years.

Only 11 participants had died at the start of EDIC, and just 250 (17%) have died as of 2023, said study coordinator cochair Gayle Lorenzi, RN, who is a certified diabetes care and education specialist at the University of California, San Diego.

“DCCT/EDIC because of its longevity represents a unique opportunity to explore aging in long duration of type 1 diabetes, something that heretofore none of us could have imagined, especially for those of you in the audience who started your careers in the 70s and 80s,” Ms. Lorenzi commented.

About 36% of the cohort now has overweight and 40% have obesity, mirroring the general population. And they now have a mean hemoglobin A1c of 7.3%.

According to Barbara H. Braffett, PhD, co–principal investigator at the DCCT/EDIC data coordinating center: “The EDIC study is now shifting its focus during the next 5 years to understand the clinical course of type 1 diabetes in the setting of advancing duration and age, as well as increasing adiposity, which has progressively affected individuals with type 1 diabetes and has potential long-term adverse consequences.”

Dr. Braffett outlined the new study approaches added in 2022-2027. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing, two-dimensional Doppler echocardiography, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity will be used to quantify functional and structural changes central to heart failure.

Dr. Nathan commented that, although enough cardiovascular events were available in EDIC by 2006 to demonstrate a significant 58% reduction in the intensive therapy group, “now we can start looking at the aging heart. We have a bunch of great cardiologists working with us who will be guiding us on measuring everything.”

Fatty liver disease in the setting of increasing adiposity will also be investigated using transient elastography (FibroScan) and the Fibrosis-4 index, a quantification of liver enzymes and platelet count.

Dr. Nathan noted that the study participants have had “this kind of funny metabolic milieu in their liver for decades. They don’t make insulin in their pancreas, and therefore, the insulin they get is peripheral and then it goes to their liver. Well, what does that do to them?”

Participants will also complete three symptom questionnaires assessing obstructive sleep apnea, aimed at guiding future sleep studies in those found to be at high risk, Dr. Braffett said.
 

DCCT/EDIC over 40 years: ‘Incredibly complete picture’

As of 2023, the DCCT/EDIC participants have been studied for longer than 60% of their lifespans and for over 80% of their diabetes duration, Dr. Braffett noted.

During the EDIC 2017-2022 cycle, Dr. Braffett and other speakers summarized, prior EDIC efforts had focused on aspects of cognitive function, physical function, and cheiroarthropathy.

Other DCCT/EDIC studies examined the relationship of A1c and diabetes duration in cardiovascular disease risk, the association of microvascular complications with the risk of cardiovascular disease beyond traditional risk factors, and the risk of severe hypoglycemia over the first 30 years of DCCT/EDIC follow-up.

Moreover, the longitudinal eye and kidney assessments over the 40 years have informed screening guidelines for retinopathy and urinary albumin.

Dr. Nathan said: “Today, the number with horrible complications is very few, but we haven’t erased complications entirely. ... We have this incredibly complete picture of type 1 diabetes that allows us to explore everything. We welcome people to come to us with ideas. That’s the value of this research.”

Dr. Nathan, Ms. Lorenzi, and Dr. Braffett reported no relevant financial relationships.

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