Clinical Endocrinology News

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.

The percentage of time spent in the pregnancy-specific target blood glucose range of 63-140 mg/dL (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) from 16 weeks’ gestation to delivery was significantly higher in women in the AID group.

Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”

The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.

Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”  

However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
 

Two experts weigh in

Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.

“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

Study rationale, method, and findings

Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.

“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.

Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin. 

As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.

Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.

They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.

A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).

Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.

The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
 

Ongoing studies, off-label use

Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”

There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.

The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.

“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.

“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.

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

In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.

The percentage of time spent in the pregnancy-specific target blood glucose range of 63-140 mg/dL (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) from 16 weeks’ gestation to delivery was significantly higher in women in the AID group.

Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”

The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.

Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”  

However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
 

Two experts weigh in

Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.

“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

Study rationale, method, and findings

Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.

“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.

Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin. 

As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.

Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.

They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.

A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).

Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.

The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
 

Ongoing studies, off-label use

Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”

There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.

The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.

“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.

“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.

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

In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.

The percentage of time spent in the pregnancy-specific target blood glucose range of 63-140 mg/dL (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) from 16 weeks’ gestation to delivery was significantly higher in women in the AID group.

Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”

The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.

Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”  

However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
 

Two experts weigh in

Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.

“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

Study rationale, method, and findings

Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.

“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.

Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin. 

As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.

Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.

They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.

A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).

Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.

The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
 

Ongoing studies, off-label use

Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”

There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.

The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.

“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.

“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.

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

SAN DIEGO – Survodutide, a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “striking” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing trial in people with overweight/obesity but without type 2 diabetes.

Close to 40% of people who were taking the highest dose lost 20% or more of their starting weight at 46 weeks, Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma are developing survodutide (formerly BI 456906) to treat obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a company press release.

Glucagon receptor agonism increases energy expenditure, and GLP-1 receptor agonism inhibits appetite, both part of the mechanism of action, Dr. Le Roux, a professor at University College in Dublin, explained.

The trial showed a “striking” and clear dose-response in terms of weight loss, with no new unexpected safety signals, he reported.

Invited to comment, session moderator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, noted that “Obesity is one of the main risk factors for [type 2] diabetes.”

“It’s very stimulating to see this new medication class make such a big impact on weight loss in such a short amount of time,” Dr. Patorno, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. However, whether the weight loss can be maintained over time remains to be determined in further research, she said.

Head-to-head weight-loss studies of the dual agonist survodutide versus the mono GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) have not been conducted, Dr. Le Roux said during a press briefing.

“What we don’t know is if somebody doesn’t respond to [weight-loss drug] product A, will they respond to product B?” he said. Because survodutide acts on two types of receptors, “you could argue that you would not only increase the absolute amount of weight but you might also increase the number of patients who would respond, but that’s theoretical at the moment,” he explained.
 

Close to 400 patients, five doses, 46-week endpoint

The researchers randomized 387 adults aged 18-75 who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m² (overweight or obesity) without type 2 diabetes at sites in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and Asia.

On average, patients were 49 years old with a body weight of 106 kg (234 lb) and a BMI of 37 kg/m², and 68% were women.

They were randomized to receive a planned weekly subcutaneous maintenance survodutide dose of 0.6 mg (76 patients), 2.4 mg (78 patients), 3.6 mg (76 patients), or 4.8 mg (76 patients), or placebo (77 patients).

The dose was escalated rapidly (monthly) during a 20-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 26-week maintenance phase.

Patients who did not reach the planned dose remained on a lower dose during the maintenance phase.

In terms of actual treatment, during the maintenance phase, 76 patients were taking placebo, 88 patients were taking 0.6 mg survodutide, 92 were taking 2.4 mg survodutide, 71 were taking 3.6 mg survodutide, and 54 were taking 4.8 mg survodutide, all given as weekly subcutaneous injections.

Primary outcome was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 46.

Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who reached a body weight reduction of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% from baseline to week 46.

Mean weight loss at 46 weeks in the planned treatment analysis (where some patients in each group were taking a lower than planned dose during maintenance) was 6.2% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group, 12.5% in the 2.4-mg group, 13.2% in the 3.6-mg group, 14.9% in the 4.8-mg group, and 2.8% in the placebo group.

Among participants who did reach and stay on their assigned dose during the maintenance phase, average weight loss was 6.8% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group,13.6% with 2.4 mg survodutide,16.7% with 3.6 mg survodutide, 18.6% with 4.8 mg survodutide, and 2.0% with placebo.

That is, patients reaching and staying on a weekly subcutaneous dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost 18.6% of their body weight at 46 weeks, Dr. Le Roux emphasized.

In terms of secondary outcomes, in the group of patients with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 83%, 69%, and 55% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

In the group of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 98%, 82%, and 67% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

Moreover, 33% of patients in the group with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide and 38% of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost ≥ 20% of their baseline body weight by week 46.

Adverse events occurred in 91% of patients in the survodutide groups and 75% in the placebo group. The most common side effects were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, which were mostly mild to moderate and mainly occurred during dose escalation. These effects may potentially be mitigated by more gradual dose escalation, Dr. Le Roux said.

There were no unexpected safety or tolerability concerns, and no serious drug-related adverse events.

These “encouraging data” support further study of survodutide for weight loss in larger phase 3 trials, Dr. Le Roux and colleagues conclude.
 

Survodutide has FDA fast track designation for NASH

Survodutide has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fast Track Designation for adults with NASH. The drug is currently being evaluated in a phase 2 study in adults with NASH and stages F1/F2/F3 liver fibrosis, with trial completion expected in the last quarter of 2023.

The current trial was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Le Roux has reported being on an advisory panel for Boehringer Ingelheim and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors are Boehringer Ingelheim employees.

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

SAN DIEGO – Survodutide, a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “striking” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing trial in people with overweight/obesity but without type 2 diabetes.

Close to 40% of people who were taking the highest dose lost 20% or more of their starting weight at 46 weeks, Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma are developing survodutide (formerly BI 456906) to treat obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a company press release.

Glucagon receptor agonism increases energy expenditure, and GLP-1 receptor agonism inhibits appetite, both part of the mechanism of action, Dr. Le Roux, a professor at University College in Dublin, explained.

The trial showed a “striking” and clear dose-response in terms of weight loss, with no new unexpected safety signals, he reported.

Invited to comment, session moderator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, noted that “Obesity is one of the main risk factors for [type 2] diabetes.”

“It’s very stimulating to see this new medication class make such a big impact on weight loss in such a short amount of time,” Dr. Patorno, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. However, whether the weight loss can be maintained over time remains to be determined in further research, she said.

Head-to-head weight-loss studies of the dual agonist survodutide versus the mono GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) have not been conducted, Dr. Le Roux said during a press briefing.

“What we don’t know is if somebody doesn’t respond to [weight-loss drug] product A, will they respond to product B?” he said. Because survodutide acts on two types of receptors, “you could argue that you would not only increase the absolute amount of weight but you might also increase the number of patients who would respond, but that’s theoretical at the moment,” he explained.
 

Close to 400 patients, five doses, 46-week endpoint

The researchers randomized 387 adults aged 18-75 who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m² (overweight or obesity) without type 2 diabetes at sites in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and Asia.

On average, patients were 49 years old with a body weight of 106 kg (234 lb) and a BMI of 37 kg/m², and 68% were women.

They were randomized to receive a planned weekly subcutaneous maintenance survodutide dose of 0.6 mg (76 patients), 2.4 mg (78 patients), 3.6 mg (76 patients), or 4.8 mg (76 patients), or placebo (77 patients).

The dose was escalated rapidly (monthly) during a 20-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 26-week maintenance phase.

Patients who did not reach the planned dose remained on a lower dose during the maintenance phase.

In terms of actual treatment, during the maintenance phase, 76 patients were taking placebo, 88 patients were taking 0.6 mg survodutide, 92 were taking 2.4 mg survodutide, 71 were taking 3.6 mg survodutide, and 54 were taking 4.8 mg survodutide, all given as weekly subcutaneous injections.

Primary outcome was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 46.

Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who reached a body weight reduction of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% from baseline to week 46.

Mean weight loss at 46 weeks in the planned treatment analysis (where some patients in each group were taking a lower than planned dose during maintenance) was 6.2% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group, 12.5% in the 2.4-mg group, 13.2% in the 3.6-mg group, 14.9% in the 4.8-mg group, and 2.8% in the placebo group.

Among participants who did reach and stay on their assigned dose during the maintenance phase, average weight loss was 6.8% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group,13.6% with 2.4 mg survodutide,16.7% with 3.6 mg survodutide, 18.6% with 4.8 mg survodutide, and 2.0% with placebo.

That is, patients reaching and staying on a weekly subcutaneous dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost 18.6% of their body weight at 46 weeks, Dr. Le Roux emphasized.

In terms of secondary outcomes, in the group of patients with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 83%, 69%, and 55% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

In the group of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 98%, 82%, and 67% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

Moreover, 33% of patients in the group with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide and 38% of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost ≥ 20% of their baseline body weight by week 46.

Adverse events occurred in 91% of patients in the survodutide groups and 75% in the placebo group. The most common side effects were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, which were mostly mild to moderate and mainly occurred during dose escalation. These effects may potentially be mitigated by more gradual dose escalation, Dr. Le Roux said.

There were no unexpected safety or tolerability concerns, and no serious drug-related adverse events.

These “encouraging data” support further study of survodutide for weight loss in larger phase 3 trials, Dr. Le Roux and colleagues conclude.
 

Survodutide has FDA fast track designation for NASH

Survodutide has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fast Track Designation for adults with NASH. The drug is currently being evaluated in a phase 2 study in adults with NASH and stages F1/F2/F3 liver fibrosis, with trial completion expected in the last quarter of 2023.

The current trial was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Le Roux has reported being on an advisory panel for Boehringer Ingelheim and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors are Boehringer Ingelheim employees.

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

SAN DIEGO – Survodutide, a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “striking” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing trial in people with overweight/obesity but without type 2 diabetes.

Close to 40% of people who were taking the highest dose lost 20% or more of their starting weight at 46 weeks, Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma are developing survodutide (formerly BI 456906) to treat obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a company press release.

Glucagon receptor agonism increases energy expenditure, and GLP-1 receptor agonism inhibits appetite, both part of the mechanism of action, Dr. Le Roux, a professor at University College in Dublin, explained.

The trial showed a “striking” and clear dose-response in terms of weight loss, with no new unexpected safety signals, he reported.

Invited to comment, session moderator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, noted that “Obesity is one of the main risk factors for [type 2] diabetes.”

“It’s very stimulating to see this new medication class make such a big impact on weight loss in such a short amount of time,” Dr. Patorno, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. However, whether the weight loss can be maintained over time remains to be determined in further research, she said.

Head-to-head weight-loss studies of the dual agonist survodutide versus the mono GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) have not been conducted, Dr. Le Roux said during a press briefing.

“What we don’t know is if somebody doesn’t respond to [weight-loss drug] product A, will they respond to product B?” he said. Because survodutide acts on two types of receptors, “you could argue that you would not only increase the absolute amount of weight but you might also increase the number of patients who would respond, but that’s theoretical at the moment,” he explained.
 

Close to 400 patients, five doses, 46-week endpoint

The researchers randomized 387 adults aged 18-75 who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m² (overweight or obesity) without type 2 diabetes at sites in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and Asia.

On average, patients were 49 years old with a body weight of 106 kg (234 lb) and a BMI of 37 kg/m², and 68% were women.

They were randomized to receive a planned weekly subcutaneous maintenance survodutide dose of 0.6 mg (76 patients), 2.4 mg (78 patients), 3.6 mg (76 patients), or 4.8 mg (76 patients), or placebo (77 patients).

The dose was escalated rapidly (monthly) during a 20-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 26-week maintenance phase.

Patients who did not reach the planned dose remained on a lower dose during the maintenance phase.

In terms of actual treatment, during the maintenance phase, 76 patients were taking placebo, 88 patients were taking 0.6 mg survodutide, 92 were taking 2.4 mg survodutide, 71 were taking 3.6 mg survodutide, and 54 were taking 4.8 mg survodutide, all given as weekly subcutaneous injections.

Primary outcome was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 46.

Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who reached a body weight reduction of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% from baseline to week 46.

Mean weight loss at 46 weeks in the planned treatment analysis (where some patients in each group were taking a lower than planned dose during maintenance) was 6.2% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group, 12.5% in the 2.4-mg group, 13.2% in the 3.6-mg group, 14.9% in the 4.8-mg group, and 2.8% in the placebo group.

Among participants who did reach and stay on their assigned dose during the maintenance phase, average weight loss was 6.8% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group,13.6% with 2.4 mg survodutide,16.7% with 3.6 mg survodutide, 18.6% with 4.8 mg survodutide, and 2.0% with placebo.

That is, patients reaching and staying on a weekly subcutaneous dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost 18.6% of their body weight at 46 weeks, Dr. Le Roux emphasized.

In terms of secondary outcomes, in the group of patients with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 83%, 69%, and 55% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

In the group of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 98%, 82%, and 67% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

Moreover, 33% of patients in the group with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide and 38% of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost ≥ 20% of their baseline body weight by week 46.

Adverse events occurred in 91% of patients in the survodutide groups and 75% in the placebo group. The most common side effects were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, which were mostly mild to moderate and mainly occurred during dose escalation. These effects may potentially be mitigated by more gradual dose escalation, Dr. Le Roux said.

There were no unexpected safety or tolerability concerns, and no serious drug-related adverse events.

These “encouraging data” support further study of survodutide for weight loss in larger phase 3 trials, Dr. Le Roux and colleagues conclude.
 

Survodutide has FDA fast track designation for NASH

Survodutide has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fast Track Designation for adults with NASH. The drug is currently being evaluated in a phase 2 study in adults with NASH and stages F1/F2/F3 liver fibrosis, with trial completion expected in the last quarter of 2023.

The current trial was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Le Roux has reported being on an advisory panel for Boehringer Ingelheim and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors are Boehringer Ingelheim employees.

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

SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.

Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.

“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.

Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”  
 

Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path

The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.

The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.

Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.

Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.  
 

Safety: No major concerns thus far

Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.

Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”

However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”

Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”

In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.” 

Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. 

The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.

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

SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.

Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.

“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.

Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”  
 

Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path

The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.

The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.

Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.

Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.  
 

Safety: No major concerns thus far

Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.

Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”

However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”

Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”

In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.” 

Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. 

The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.

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

SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.

Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.

“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.

Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”  
 

Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path

The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.

The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.

Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.

Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.  
 

Safety: No major concerns thus far

Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.

Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”

However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”

Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”

In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.” 

Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. 

The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.

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

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the mid-1990s, when Somnath Saha was a medical resident at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, he came across a cluster of studies showing that Black people with cardiovascular disease were treated less aggressively, compared with White people. The findings were “appalling” to the young physician who describes himself as a “Brown kid from suburban St. Louis, Missouri.”

Dr. Saha had experienced racism growing up, but was surprised to see such clear signs of inequity within the field of medicine. “There was an injustice happening in my own backyard,” he said.

Indeed, bias towards Black patients can be challenging because many doctors either don’t realize their biases or won’t admit to them. Dr. Saha, now a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, likens implicit bias – unconscious judgments that can affect behavior – to “an invisible force.”

While numerous studies have found evidence of racial discrimination in medicine through patient reports, less is known about how implicit bias shows up in medical records, and how stigmatizing language in patient notes can affect the care that Black patients receive.

That’s part of the reason why, about 7 years ago, Dr. Saha began poring through medical records. For him, they offered a window into doctors’ feelings about their patients.

As part of his latest research, Dr. Saha’s team examined the records of nearly 19,000 patients, paying particular attention to negative descriptions that may influence a clinician’s decision-making. The data, which were recently presented at the 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, aren’t yet published, but it suggests what researchers have long speculated: Doctors are more likely to use negative language when describing a Black patient than they are in describing a White patient. The notes provide, at times, a surprisingly candid view of how patients are perceived by doctors, and how their race may affect treatment.

The study adds to a concerning body of literature that explores how racial bias manifests in health care. Researchers like Dr. Saha are interested in how such prejudice leaves a paper trail, which can then reinforce negative stereotypes. Because medical notes get passed between physicians, Dr. Saha’s research suggests they can affect the health of Black patients down the line.

“The medical record is like a rap sheet, it stays with you,” Dr. Saha said, adding that “these things that we say about patients get eternalized.”

Research has long shown that Black patients experience worse health outcomes, compared with White patients, in part because of biased medical care. Black women, for example, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications, compared with White women. And Black patients often report feeling like physicians don’t listen to their needs or don’t believe their concerns.

Studies appear to back that up. Last year, researchers at the University of Washington found that non-Hispanic White children who went to the emergency room for migraines were more likely to receive pain medications, compared with children of color – even though the two groups reported similar pain scores. Other studies echo similar results for adults as well.

While Michael Sun, a resident physician at the University of Chicago, knew about such health disparities, by his own admission, he was naive about the biases in medical records. At that time, Dr. Sun had “no experience in the medical record, in documentation, or in physician language and culture,” he said.

But in Dr. Sun’s first year of medical school, his professor shared the story of a longtime patient, whom she had referred to an outside specialist. In his recollection, the professor regarded her patient in kind terms, having worked with her for some time to treat a chronic illness. But when she got the specialist’s notes back, she was confused by the description of her patient: Terms like “really difficult,” “noncompliant,” and “uninterested in their health.” This was not the patient she remembered.

“This, as a first-year medical student, really shocked me because I had taken at face value that any words used in notes were true, were valid, or rightfully used,” said Dr. Sun. “I realized all the ways that bias, untold stories, and unknown context may change the way that we view our patients.”

Like Dr. Saha, Dr. Sun became interested in how bias influenced the relationship between doctor and patient, and how these interactions were memorialized in the medical record. In a study published last year, he and his colleagues looked at more than 40,000 medical notes from 18,459 patients. Researchers first manually combed through the notes, then used this information to teach a machine learning algorithm to interpret the connotations of words. Compared with White patients, Black patients were about 2.5 times more likely to be described negatively, with terms like “challenging,” “angry,” and “noncompliant.”

Dr. Saha has used similar methodology – and found similar results – in his own research. For the study presented at the AAAS meeting, his team first read through more than 100,000 medical notes to identify language their team considered to be disparaging – which they chose based on a list of words and phrases from prior research. They then used machine learning to find those terms in medical notes, taking care to ensure context was considered. For example, if the word “aggressive” was used to describe a treatment plan, it was excluded from their analysis. But if “aggressive” was used to describe the patient, it was included.

Dr. Saha pointed to three categories of stigmatizing language that were the most pronounced: expressing doubt or disbelief in what the patient said, such as reporting they “claimed” to experience pain; insinuating that the patient was confrontational, using words like “belligerent” or combative;” and suggesting a patient was not cooperating with a doctor’s orders by saying they “refused” medical advice.

“We’ve known for some time that in health care we sometimes use language that can be confusing or even insulting,” Matthew Wynia, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, wrote in an email to Undark. But he noted that research such as Dr. Saha’s has drawn attention to a previously overlooked issue. Describing a patient as “noncompliant” with medications, he said, “makes it sound like the patient is intentionally refusing to follow advice when, in fact, there are many reasons why people might not be able to follow our advice and intentional refusal isn’t even a very common one.”

Dr. Saha noted that, if a patient isn’t taking their medication, it’s important that doctors note that, so that the next physician doesn’t overprescribe them. But the concern, he said, is whether doctors are using these terms appropriately and for the right reasons because of the implications they have for patients.

If a doctor portrays their patient negatively, Dr. Saha said, it can “trigger the next clinician to read them and formulate a potentially negative opinion about that patient” before they’ve even had a chance to interact.

Still, stigmatizing language is only one small piece of the puzzle. What also matters, Dr. Saha said, is how those words can have an impact on care. In prior work, Dr. Saha has shown how implicit and, in some cases, explicit bias, affects a patient’s treatment recommendations.

In a 2018 study, Dr. Saha, along with his wife, Mary Catherine Beach – also a professor at Johns Hopkins University – combed through reports of patients with sickle cell anemia. Their team focused on that particular population since sickle cell patients are some of the most stigmatized in the health care system: Most patients are Black and many require regular doses of opioids for pain management.

In the notes, they found numerous examples of details that were irrelevant to patients’ health concerns: phrases like “girlfriend requests bus token,” “cursing at nurse,” “girlfriend on bed with shoes on,” and “narcotic dependent.”

Dr. Saha and Dr. Beach wanted to see how these remarks might influence a physician’s treatment recommendations, so they used vignettes they had found in the medical records of sickle cell patients. They showed either a vignette which had described patients negatively, or one that was edited with neutral language. Then they asked medical students and residents about the dose of pain medication they would hypothetically recommend. Dr. Beach said that the purpose was to see how what she called “dog whistles about social class or race or something that would make the person seem less educated” would impact treatment recommendations.

The study found that medical notes with stigmatizing language were associated with “less aggressive management of the patient’s pain.” Doctors who read the stigmatizing language chart notes prescribed less pain medication to patients even in cases when they commented that their pain was a 10 out of 10.

“The fact that we were able to show that this bias transmits to the next doctor has been the thing that I think motivates doctors to take it seriously,” said Dr. Beach.

Pain management has become a focal point for researchers because many of the most glaring racial tropes about patient care have revolved around pain. In 2016, a study conducted at the University of Virginia found that half of the 418 medical students and residents surveyed endorsed false beliefs about Black patients. For example, that “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites” and “Blacks’ skin is thicker than whites.” What’s more, those who endorsed these false beliefs also rated Black patients’ pain as lower than White patients’.

Antoinette M. Schoenthaler, a professor of population health and medicine at New York University and associate director of research at the school’s Institute for Excellence in Health Equity, said that disparities in pain management are pervasive and widespread across the medical profession. They seep into treatments for sickle cell anemia, but also prenatal care. As a result, she said, Black patients across the board are often fearful of attending appointments.

“Patients of color go into an appointment with feelings of heightened anxiety because they’re expecting mistreatment,” said Dr. Schoenthaler. “We’ve seen minoritized patients have higher blood pressure in the context of a clinical visit because of these expectations of anxiety and fear, and disappointment.”

Disparities in health care between Black and White patients is a complex issue – one which can’t be solved by addressing medical records alone. But, for researchers like Dr. Saha, Dr. Beach, and Dr. Sun, they can offer a road map that outlines where differences in care begin. The words a clinician uses sets the path for how a patient may be treated in the future.

One way to combat implicit bias, Dr. Saha suggested, is to use an algorithm that identifies stigmatizing language to “give hospital departments or clinicians report cards on how much of this language that they’re using.” By benchmarking averages against one another, clinicians could know if they’re using stigmatizing language at an above average rate. This is something he is considering for future research.

When clinicians are made aware of their biases – when the unconscious becomes conscious – Dr. Saha told Undark that he’s optimistic they’ll work to change them: “We’re using language that we’ve used forever without realizing the potential impact that it has on patient care.”

This article originated on Undark. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A smartwatch can tell a lot about a person’s health, but for guarding against big threats like diabetes and heart disease, blood tests remain the gold standard – for now. 

Someday, a wearable patch could give patients and doctors the same information, minus the poke in the arm and the schlep to the medical lab. 

The patch will track markers in interstitial fluid. 

Continuous glucose monitors have already provided this glimpse into the future, by using interstitial fluid to track blood glucose levels in real time. 

Now scientists are asking: What else could this tech help us measure? 

“The vision is eventually to develop a lab under the skin,” said Joseph Wang, PhD, professor of nanoengineering at the University of California San Diego.

The result: All your patients’ lab work – cholesterol, hormones, electrolytes, and more – could become do-it-yourself, easing burdens on the health care system and empowering patients with real-time, clinical-grade information about their health. 
 

How does it work?

Sweat and saliva may be easier to get to, but interstitial fluid is a better mirror for blood. It leaks from tiny blood vessels (capillaries), and it carries nutrients to and removes waste from your skin.

To capture this fluid, each monitor has either a tiny wire or an array of less-than-a-millimeter-long microneedles that penetrate the skin for days, weeks, or however long you wear it. “You don’t feel it,” Dr. Wang said. “Once you place it on the skin, you forget about it.”

The microneedles or wires are made from a polymer that sucks up the fluid, which flows to a biochemical sensor targeting the marker you want to measure.

The earliest patents for this technology date back to the 1990s (the first wearable glucose monitors for home use rolled out in the 2000s), but sensors have come a long way since then, becoming smaller, more accurate, and more sophisticated.

Glucose sensors use an enzyme that reacts to glucose to reveal its concentration in the blood. Researcher Jason Heikenfeld, PhD, and his team at the University of Cincinnati focus on “aptamers,” short single strands of DNA that bind to target molecules. “You can leverage the body’s own ability to generate stuff to grab a needle in a haystack,” he said.   
 

The bigger picture

As our population ages and health care costs spiral, and our medical infrastructure and labor force are stretched thin, we’re seeing a push for decentralized medicine, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Like other at-home monitoring technologies, interstitial fluid sensing promises convenience and better access to care. 

“There’s a lot you can do over telemedicine, over the phone,” said Justin T. Baca, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “But we still haven’t figured out how to collect reliable biosamples and analyze them remotely.”

Unlike a traditional blood test, which gives a health snapshot for a single point in time, these devices track data continuously, revealing trends and helping you spot oncoming threats earlier. 

Take ketones, for example. Dr. Baca and others are using interstitial fluid to continuously detect ketone levels in the blood, potentially enabling us to catch diabetic ketoacidosis sooner. 

“It’s potentially like an early warning sign that somebody needs to get either checked out or get rehydrated or get some insulin; kind of an early diagnostic to avoid hospital visits later on,” Dr. Baca said. 

Here’s what else this tech could help us do:

Chronic disease management

Seeing the health impact of medication and diet in real time could motivate patients to stick to their treatment plans, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Researchers in Taiwan are developing a test that could help people with chronic kidney disease track levels of cystatin C, a protein that goes up as kidney function declines. Heart disease patients could watch their cholesterol levels drop over time, and of course, diabetes patients can already track glucose. 

Prescription drug monitoring

Providers could monitor drug levels in a patient’s body – like antibiotics for an infection – to see how it’s being metabolized, and adjust the dose as needed, Dr. Heikenfeld said. 

Stress and hormone therapy

Interstitial fluid could help us measure hormone levels, such as the stress hormone cortisol. 

Scientists in the United Kingdom and Norway developed a waist-worn device that collects interstitial fluid samples continuously for up to 3 days. In their study, samples were sent out for analysis, but someday the device could be equipped with a sensor to monitor a single hormone in real time, said study author Thomas Upton, PhD, a clinical research fellow at the University of Bristol in England. “There is a lot of interest in real-time cortisol monitoring,” he said. 

Among those who could benefit: patients with hormone deficiencies, night shift workers with disturbed circadian rhythms, or anyone who wants to keep tabs on their stress response. 

Human performance and wellness

Athletes could use glucose and lactate monitors to optimize training, recovery time, and diet. For those on the keto diet, a monitor could help them adjust their carb intake based on their ketone levels. Abbott’s Analyte Ventures group is working on blood alcohol sensors, helpful to anyone who wants to avoid overindulging.  
 

When will this be ready for clinical use?

Early research has been promising, but much more is needed before interstitial fluid sensors can be verified and approved. 

Manufacturing will be a challenge. Producing these sensors at scale, without sacrificing consistency or quality, won’t be cheap, said Dr. Heikenfeld. Today’s continuous glucose monitors took decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. 

Still, the groundwork has been laid. 

“As we all pivot more towards interstitial fluid, there’s a proven roadmap of success that the big diagnostic companies over decades have cut their teeth on,” said Dr. Heikenfeld. 

For now, scientists are refining sensors and figuring out how to protect them from other body fluids while in use, Dr. Wang said. But if it all comes together, the result could be game-changing.

Dr. Wang’s lab is developing a system that can monitor glucose and lactate or glucose and alcohol – which could become available in as little as 2 years, he said. 

In the next decade, Dr. Wang predicted, we’ll be able to measure a dozen markers with one simple patch.

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

A smartwatch can tell a lot about a person’s health, but for guarding against big threats like diabetes and heart disease, blood tests remain the gold standard – for now. 

Someday, a wearable patch could give patients and doctors the same information, minus the poke in the arm and the schlep to the medical lab. 

The patch will track markers in interstitial fluid. 

Continuous glucose monitors have already provided this glimpse into the future, by using interstitial fluid to track blood glucose levels in real time. 

Now scientists are asking: What else could this tech help us measure? 

“The vision is eventually to develop a lab under the skin,” said Joseph Wang, PhD, professor of nanoengineering at the University of California San Diego.

The result: All your patients’ lab work – cholesterol, hormones, electrolytes, and more – could become do-it-yourself, easing burdens on the health care system and empowering patients with real-time, clinical-grade information about their health. 
 

How does it work?

Sweat and saliva may be easier to get to, but interstitial fluid is a better mirror for blood. It leaks from tiny blood vessels (capillaries), and it carries nutrients to and removes waste from your skin.

To capture this fluid, each monitor has either a tiny wire or an array of less-than-a-millimeter-long microneedles that penetrate the skin for days, weeks, or however long you wear it. “You don’t feel it,” Dr. Wang said. “Once you place it on the skin, you forget about it.”

The microneedles or wires are made from a polymer that sucks up the fluid, which flows to a biochemical sensor targeting the marker you want to measure.

The earliest patents for this technology date back to the 1990s (the first wearable glucose monitors for home use rolled out in the 2000s), but sensors have come a long way since then, becoming smaller, more accurate, and more sophisticated.

Glucose sensors use an enzyme that reacts to glucose to reveal its concentration in the blood. Researcher Jason Heikenfeld, PhD, and his team at the University of Cincinnati focus on “aptamers,” short single strands of DNA that bind to target molecules. “You can leverage the body’s own ability to generate stuff to grab a needle in a haystack,” he said.   
 

The bigger picture

As our population ages and health care costs spiral, and our medical infrastructure and labor force are stretched thin, we’re seeing a push for decentralized medicine, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Like other at-home monitoring technologies, interstitial fluid sensing promises convenience and better access to care. 

“There’s a lot you can do over telemedicine, over the phone,” said Justin T. Baca, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “But we still haven’t figured out how to collect reliable biosamples and analyze them remotely.”

Unlike a traditional blood test, which gives a health snapshot for a single point in time, these devices track data continuously, revealing trends and helping you spot oncoming threats earlier. 

Take ketones, for example. Dr. Baca and others are using interstitial fluid to continuously detect ketone levels in the blood, potentially enabling us to catch diabetic ketoacidosis sooner. 

“It’s potentially like an early warning sign that somebody needs to get either checked out or get rehydrated or get some insulin; kind of an early diagnostic to avoid hospital visits later on,” Dr. Baca said. 

Here’s what else this tech could help us do:

Chronic disease management

Seeing the health impact of medication and diet in real time could motivate patients to stick to their treatment plans, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Researchers in Taiwan are developing a test that could help people with chronic kidney disease track levels of cystatin C, a protein that goes up as kidney function declines. Heart disease patients could watch their cholesterol levels drop over time, and of course, diabetes patients can already track glucose. 

Prescription drug monitoring

Providers could monitor drug levels in a patient’s body – like antibiotics for an infection – to see how it’s being metabolized, and adjust the dose as needed, Dr. Heikenfeld said. 

Stress and hormone therapy

Interstitial fluid could help us measure hormone levels, such as the stress hormone cortisol. 

Scientists in the United Kingdom and Norway developed a waist-worn device that collects interstitial fluid samples continuously for up to 3 days. In their study, samples were sent out for analysis, but someday the device could be equipped with a sensor to monitor a single hormone in real time, said study author Thomas Upton, PhD, a clinical research fellow at the University of Bristol in England. “There is a lot of interest in real-time cortisol monitoring,” he said. 

Among those who could benefit: patients with hormone deficiencies, night shift workers with disturbed circadian rhythms, or anyone who wants to keep tabs on their stress response. 

Human performance and wellness

Athletes could use glucose and lactate monitors to optimize training, recovery time, and diet. For those on the keto diet, a monitor could help them adjust their carb intake based on their ketone levels. Abbott’s Analyte Ventures group is working on blood alcohol sensors, helpful to anyone who wants to avoid overindulging.  
 

When will this be ready for clinical use?

Early research has been promising, but much more is needed before interstitial fluid sensors can be verified and approved. 

Manufacturing will be a challenge. Producing these sensors at scale, without sacrificing consistency or quality, won’t be cheap, said Dr. Heikenfeld. Today’s continuous glucose monitors took decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. 

Still, the groundwork has been laid. 

“As we all pivot more towards interstitial fluid, there’s a proven roadmap of success that the big diagnostic companies over decades have cut their teeth on,” said Dr. Heikenfeld. 

For now, scientists are refining sensors and figuring out how to protect them from other body fluids while in use, Dr. Wang said. But if it all comes together, the result could be game-changing.

Dr. Wang’s lab is developing a system that can monitor glucose and lactate or glucose and alcohol – which could become available in as little as 2 years, he said. 

In the next decade, Dr. Wang predicted, we’ll be able to measure a dozen markers with one simple patch.

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

A smartwatch can tell a lot about a person’s health, but for guarding against big threats like diabetes and heart disease, blood tests remain the gold standard – for now. 

Someday, a wearable patch could give patients and doctors the same information, minus the poke in the arm and the schlep to the medical lab. 

The patch will track markers in interstitial fluid. 

Continuous glucose monitors have already provided this glimpse into the future, by using interstitial fluid to track blood glucose levels in real time. 

Now scientists are asking: What else could this tech help us measure? 

“The vision is eventually to develop a lab under the skin,” said Joseph Wang, PhD, professor of nanoengineering at the University of California San Diego.

The result: All your patients’ lab work – cholesterol, hormones, electrolytes, and more – could become do-it-yourself, easing burdens on the health care system and empowering patients with real-time, clinical-grade information about their health. 
 

How does it work?

Sweat and saliva may be easier to get to, but interstitial fluid is a better mirror for blood. It leaks from tiny blood vessels (capillaries), and it carries nutrients to and removes waste from your skin.

To capture this fluid, each monitor has either a tiny wire or an array of less-than-a-millimeter-long microneedles that penetrate the skin for days, weeks, or however long you wear it. “You don’t feel it,” Dr. Wang said. “Once you place it on the skin, you forget about it.”

The microneedles or wires are made from a polymer that sucks up the fluid, which flows to a biochemical sensor targeting the marker you want to measure.

The earliest patents for this technology date back to the 1990s (the first wearable glucose monitors for home use rolled out in the 2000s), but sensors have come a long way since then, becoming smaller, more accurate, and more sophisticated.

Glucose sensors use an enzyme that reacts to glucose to reveal its concentration in the blood. Researcher Jason Heikenfeld, PhD, and his team at the University of Cincinnati focus on “aptamers,” short single strands of DNA that bind to target molecules. “You can leverage the body’s own ability to generate stuff to grab a needle in a haystack,” he said.   
 

The bigger picture

As our population ages and health care costs spiral, and our medical infrastructure and labor force are stretched thin, we’re seeing a push for decentralized medicine, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Like other at-home monitoring technologies, interstitial fluid sensing promises convenience and better access to care. 

“There’s a lot you can do over telemedicine, over the phone,” said Justin T. Baca, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “But we still haven’t figured out how to collect reliable biosamples and analyze them remotely.”

Unlike a traditional blood test, which gives a health snapshot for a single point in time, these devices track data continuously, revealing trends and helping you spot oncoming threats earlier. 

Take ketones, for example. Dr. Baca and others are using interstitial fluid to continuously detect ketone levels in the blood, potentially enabling us to catch diabetic ketoacidosis sooner. 

“It’s potentially like an early warning sign that somebody needs to get either checked out or get rehydrated or get some insulin; kind of an early diagnostic to avoid hospital visits later on,” Dr. Baca said. 

Here’s what else this tech could help us do:

Chronic disease management

Seeing the health impact of medication and diet in real time could motivate patients to stick to their treatment plans, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Researchers in Taiwan are developing a test that could help people with chronic kidney disease track levels of cystatin C, a protein that goes up as kidney function declines. Heart disease patients could watch their cholesterol levels drop over time, and of course, diabetes patients can already track glucose. 

Prescription drug monitoring

Providers could monitor drug levels in a patient’s body – like antibiotics for an infection – to see how it’s being metabolized, and adjust the dose as needed, Dr. Heikenfeld said. 

Stress and hormone therapy

Interstitial fluid could help us measure hormone levels, such as the stress hormone cortisol. 

Scientists in the United Kingdom and Norway developed a waist-worn device that collects interstitial fluid samples continuously for up to 3 days. In their study, samples were sent out for analysis, but someday the device could be equipped with a sensor to monitor a single hormone in real time, said study author Thomas Upton, PhD, a clinical research fellow at the University of Bristol in England. “There is a lot of interest in real-time cortisol monitoring,” he said. 

Among those who could benefit: patients with hormone deficiencies, night shift workers with disturbed circadian rhythms, or anyone who wants to keep tabs on their stress response. 

Human performance and wellness

Athletes could use glucose and lactate monitors to optimize training, recovery time, and diet. For those on the keto diet, a monitor could help them adjust their carb intake based on their ketone levels. Abbott’s Analyte Ventures group is working on blood alcohol sensors, helpful to anyone who wants to avoid overindulging.  
 

When will this be ready for clinical use?

Early research has been promising, but much more is needed before interstitial fluid sensors can be verified and approved. 

Manufacturing will be a challenge. Producing these sensors at scale, without sacrificing consistency or quality, won’t be cheap, said Dr. Heikenfeld. Today’s continuous glucose monitors took decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. 

Still, the groundwork has been laid. 

“As we all pivot more towards interstitial fluid, there’s a proven roadmap of success that the big diagnostic companies over decades have cut their teeth on,” said Dr. Heikenfeld. 

For now, scientists are refining sensors and figuring out how to protect them from other body fluids while in use, Dr. Wang said. But if it all comes together, the result could be game-changing.

Dr. Wang’s lab is developing a system that can monitor glucose and lactate or glucose and alcohol – which could become available in as little as 2 years, he said. 

In the next decade, Dr. Wang predicted, we’ll be able to measure a dozen markers with one simple patch.

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

Short-term and cyclical use of estrogen and progestin therapy for menopausal symptoms is linked to an increased risk of dementia, results of a large observational study show.

Investigators found that women in their 50s who took hormone therapy (HT) for menopausal symptoms had a 24% increased risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) 20 years later, compared with those who didn’t use HT. The risk was present even in women who used HT for brief periods at menopause onset.

However, both the investigators and experts not involved in the research caution that further studies are needed to explore whether the increased risk of dementia stems from HT use or whether women in need of HT have other underlying dementia risk factors.

“We cannot guarantee that our findings illustrate a causal relationship or if they represent underlying disposition to dementia in women in need of [HT],” lead investigator Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, from the Danish Dementia Research Centre at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, told this news organization.

Still, he added, the findings supported evidence from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), the largest randomized trial on menopausal hormone therapy and dementia.

The findings were published online in BMJ.
 

Conflicting findings

Before WHIMS was published in 2003, HT was widely prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms. However, WHIMS, which included more than 4,000 women aged 65 years or older, revealed that HT was associated with a twofold increased risk of dementia.

Studies published since then have yielded mixed results, adding to the controversy surrounding the safety of HT.

To discover whether age of initiation or length of duration of HT affects health outcomes, Dr. Pourhadi and his team undertook the observational study.

Between 2000 and 2018, the researchers tracked more than 60,000 Danish women aged 50-60 years using diagnosis and prescription information from Denmark’s National Registry of Patients.

The registry records showed that nearly 5,600 women developed dementia and 56,000 did not develop dementia. Of the 5,600 women with dementia, 1,460 had a diagnosis of AD.

Nearly 18,000 participants in the study sample received HT – 1,790 (29%) in the dementia group and 16,150 (32%) in the control group. Half started treatment before age 53 years and half stopped within 4 years. Roughly 90% used oral medications, which included a combination of estrogen and progestin.

The median age at which participants started HT was 53 years for both cases and controls, and the median duration of use was 4 years.
 

Longer use equals greater risk

Compared with those who did not use HT, those who used estrogen-progestin therapy had a 24% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.44).

The increased dementia risk was similar between continuous (estrogen and progestin taken daily) and cyclic (daily estrogen with progestin taken 10-14 days a month) treatment regimens.

Longer durations of HT use were associated with increased risk, ranging from a 21% increased risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35) for those who used it for 1 year or less to a 74% increased risk (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45-2.10) for use lasting 12 years or more.

Women who started HT between the age of 45 and 50 had a 26% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41) while women who initiated HT between age 51 and 60 had a 21% greater risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

Progestin-only or vaginal-estrogen-only therapy was not associated with the development of dementia.

The investigators noted that because this is an observational study, “further studies are warranted to explore if the observed association in this study between menopausal hormone therapy use and increased risk of dementia illustrates a causal effect.”
 

No causal relationship

In an accompanying editorial, Kejal Kantarci, MD, a professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that three clinical trials, including the WHIMS of Younger Women (WHIMS-Y) in 2013, did not show a link between cognitive function and HT.

“Although [Dr.] Pourhadi and colleagues’ study was done carefully using national registries, the observed associations could be artefactual and should not be used to infer a causal relationship between hormone therapy and dementia risk. These findings cannot inform shared decision-making about use of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms,” she states in the editorial.

Also commenting on the findings, Amanda Heslegrave, PhD, a senior research fellow at the U.K. Dementia Research Institute, London, said in a release from the U.K.’s Science Media Centre that while the study “may cause alarm for women taking [HT], it highlights just how much we still don’t know about the effects of hormones on women’s brain health, and with promising treatments on the horizon, it should be a call to action to make this a priority area of research.”

There was no specific funding for the study. Dr. Kantarci reported working on an unpaid educational activity on Alzheimer’s disease for Biogen and is the PI on a study of a PET imaging ligand for Alzheimer’s disease, to which Eli Lilly and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals donated supplies.

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

Short-term and cyclical use of estrogen and progestin therapy for menopausal symptoms is linked to an increased risk of dementia, results of a large observational study show.

Investigators found that women in their 50s who took hormone therapy (HT) for menopausal symptoms had a 24% increased risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) 20 years later, compared with those who didn’t use HT. The risk was present even in women who used HT for brief periods at menopause onset.

However, both the investigators and experts not involved in the research caution that further studies are needed to explore whether the increased risk of dementia stems from HT use or whether women in need of HT have other underlying dementia risk factors.

“We cannot guarantee that our findings illustrate a causal relationship or if they represent underlying disposition to dementia in women in need of [HT],” lead investigator Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, from the Danish Dementia Research Centre at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, told this news organization.

Still, he added, the findings supported evidence from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), the largest randomized trial on menopausal hormone therapy and dementia.

The findings were published online in BMJ.
 

Conflicting findings

Before WHIMS was published in 2003, HT was widely prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms. However, WHIMS, which included more than 4,000 women aged 65 years or older, revealed that HT was associated with a twofold increased risk of dementia.

Studies published since then have yielded mixed results, adding to the controversy surrounding the safety of HT.

To discover whether age of initiation or length of duration of HT affects health outcomes, Dr. Pourhadi and his team undertook the observational study.

Between 2000 and 2018, the researchers tracked more than 60,000 Danish women aged 50-60 years using diagnosis and prescription information from Denmark’s National Registry of Patients.

The registry records showed that nearly 5,600 women developed dementia and 56,000 did not develop dementia. Of the 5,600 women with dementia, 1,460 had a diagnosis of AD.

Nearly 18,000 participants in the study sample received HT – 1,790 (29%) in the dementia group and 16,150 (32%) in the control group. Half started treatment before age 53 years and half stopped within 4 years. Roughly 90% used oral medications, which included a combination of estrogen and progestin.

The median age at which participants started HT was 53 years for both cases and controls, and the median duration of use was 4 years.
 

Longer use equals greater risk

Compared with those who did not use HT, those who used estrogen-progestin therapy had a 24% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.44).

The increased dementia risk was similar between continuous (estrogen and progestin taken daily) and cyclic (daily estrogen with progestin taken 10-14 days a month) treatment regimens.

Longer durations of HT use were associated with increased risk, ranging from a 21% increased risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35) for those who used it for 1 year or less to a 74% increased risk (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45-2.10) for use lasting 12 years or more.

Women who started HT between the age of 45 and 50 had a 26% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41) while women who initiated HT between age 51 and 60 had a 21% greater risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

Progestin-only or vaginal-estrogen-only therapy was not associated with the development of dementia.

The investigators noted that because this is an observational study, “further studies are warranted to explore if the observed association in this study between menopausal hormone therapy use and increased risk of dementia illustrates a causal effect.”
 

No causal relationship

In an accompanying editorial, Kejal Kantarci, MD, a professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that three clinical trials, including the WHIMS of Younger Women (WHIMS-Y) in 2013, did not show a link between cognitive function and HT.

“Although [Dr.] Pourhadi and colleagues’ study was done carefully using national registries, the observed associations could be artefactual and should not be used to infer a causal relationship between hormone therapy and dementia risk. These findings cannot inform shared decision-making about use of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms,” she states in the editorial.

Also commenting on the findings, Amanda Heslegrave, PhD, a senior research fellow at the U.K. Dementia Research Institute, London, said in a release from the U.K.’s Science Media Centre that while the study “may cause alarm for women taking [HT], it highlights just how much we still don’t know about the effects of hormones on women’s brain health, and with promising treatments on the horizon, it should be a call to action to make this a priority area of research.”

There was no specific funding for the study. Dr. Kantarci reported working on an unpaid educational activity on Alzheimer’s disease for Biogen and is the PI on a study of a PET imaging ligand for Alzheimer’s disease, to which Eli Lilly and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals donated supplies.

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

Short-term and cyclical use of estrogen and progestin therapy for menopausal symptoms is linked to an increased risk of dementia, results of a large observational study show.

Investigators found that women in their 50s who took hormone therapy (HT) for menopausal symptoms had a 24% increased risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) 20 years later, compared with those who didn’t use HT. The risk was present even in women who used HT for brief periods at menopause onset.

However, both the investigators and experts not involved in the research caution that further studies are needed to explore whether the increased risk of dementia stems from HT use or whether women in need of HT have other underlying dementia risk factors.

“We cannot guarantee that our findings illustrate a causal relationship or if they represent underlying disposition to dementia in women in need of [HT],” lead investigator Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, from the Danish Dementia Research Centre at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, told this news organization.

Still, he added, the findings supported evidence from the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), the largest randomized trial on menopausal hormone therapy and dementia.

The findings were published online in BMJ.
 

Conflicting findings

Before WHIMS was published in 2003, HT was widely prescribed to relieve menopausal symptoms. However, WHIMS, which included more than 4,000 women aged 65 years or older, revealed that HT was associated with a twofold increased risk of dementia.

Studies published since then have yielded mixed results, adding to the controversy surrounding the safety of HT.

To discover whether age of initiation or length of duration of HT affects health outcomes, Dr. Pourhadi and his team undertook the observational study.

Between 2000 and 2018, the researchers tracked more than 60,000 Danish women aged 50-60 years using diagnosis and prescription information from Denmark’s National Registry of Patients.

The registry records showed that nearly 5,600 women developed dementia and 56,000 did not develop dementia. Of the 5,600 women with dementia, 1,460 had a diagnosis of AD.

Nearly 18,000 participants in the study sample received HT – 1,790 (29%) in the dementia group and 16,150 (32%) in the control group. Half started treatment before age 53 years and half stopped within 4 years. Roughly 90% used oral medications, which included a combination of estrogen and progestin.

The median age at which participants started HT was 53 years for both cases and controls, and the median duration of use was 4 years.
 

Longer use equals greater risk

Compared with those who did not use HT, those who used estrogen-progestin therapy had a 24% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.44).

The increased dementia risk was similar between continuous (estrogen and progestin taken daily) and cyclic (daily estrogen with progestin taken 10-14 days a month) treatment regimens.

Longer durations of HT use were associated with increased risk, ranging from a 21% increased risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35) for those who used it for 1 year or less to a 74% increased risk (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.45-2.10) for use lasting 12 years or more.

Women who started HT between the age of 45 and 50 had a 26% increased risk of developing all-cause dementia (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41) while women who initiated HT between age 51 and 60 had a 21% greater risk (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

Progestin-only or vaginal-estrogen-only therapy was not associated with the development of dementia.

The investigators noted that because this is an observational study, “further studies are warranted to explore if the observed association in this study between menopausal hormone therapy use and increased risk of dementia illustrates a causal effect.”
 

No causal relationship

In an accompanying editorial, Kejal Kantarci, MD, a professor of radiology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that three clinical trials, including the WHIMS of Younger Women (WHIMS-Y) in 2013, did not show a link between cognitive function and HT.

“Although [Dr.] Pourhadi and colleagues’ study was done carefully using national registries, the observed associations could be artefactual and should not be used to infer a causal relationship between hormone therapy and dementia risk. These findings cannot inform shared decision-making about use of hormone therapy for menopausal symptoms,” she states in the editorial.

Also commenting on the findings, Amanda Heslegrave, PhD, a senior research fellow at the U.K. Dementia Research Institute, London, said in a release from the U.K.’s Science Media Centre that while the study “may cause alarm for women taking [HT], it highlights just how much we still don’t know about the effects of hormones on women’s brain health, and with promising treatments on the horizon, it should be a call to action to make this a priority area of research.”

There was no specific funding for the study. Dr. Kantarci reported working on an unpaid educational activity on Alzheimer’s disease for Biogen and is the PI on a study of a PET imaging ligand for Alzheimer’s disease, to which Eli Lilly and Avid Radiopharmaceuticals donated supplies.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29 that using race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional, rolling back more than 40 years of affirmative action standards and changing how medical schools evaluate applicants to attract students from diverse backgrounds.  

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, said in a prepared statement that the Supreme Court ruling will result in a less diverse physician workforce, which is “bad for health care, bad for medicine, and undermines the health of our nation.” He cited the AMA’s recent adoption of a policy advising medical schools to increase enrollment of people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine – even if that means considering race as a factor in admissions criteria.

“Supporting racial and ethnic diversity in the health professions – spanning classrooms, labs, and clinical settings – enriches the educational experiences of all medical and health professions students and the teaching experiences of faculty, and it is essential to improving the overall health of our nation,” the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) said in a prepared statement. The AAMC said it was “deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision and will continue to pursue efforts to improve diversity among medical students and physicians.

The American Medical Student Association also denounced the Supreme Court decision. “As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged ... We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments,” the organization said in a press release.

“Diversity in the health care workforce not only benefits underserved patients but improves care for all patients” by increasing understanding and empathy for people of various cultures, Omar T. Atiq, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a press release.

The Supreme Court ruling stems from a lawsuit by the Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that considering race in the college admission process constitutes discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the court’s decision, stated that an applicant’s personal experiences should carry the most weight in admission decisions and that historically, universities have “wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

Still, Justice Roberts said the opinion does not prohibit universities from considering how race has affected an applicant’s life, “be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

Diversity in medical schools increased last year, with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling. But continued diversity efforts were expected to prove challenging with affirmative action off the table, according to an amicus brief filed last year by the AMA, the AAMC, and dozens of other professional health care organizations.

The brief supported continued use of race in college admissions, stating that eliminating that factor could slow efforts to achieve greater health equity because fewer doctors would be training and working with colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Several universities with medical programs, such as Yale and Johns Hopkins universities, filed a separate brief citing similar concerns. After the June 29 decision, Harvard and the University of North Carolina released statements stating they would comply with the ruling.

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