Diabetes

Very few patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) achieve and sustain diabetes remission via weight loss alone, new research suggests.

Among more than 37,000 people with T2D in Hong Kong, only 6% had achieved and sustained diabetes remission solely through weight loss up to 8 years after diagnosis. Among those who initially achieved remission, 67% had hyperglycemia at 3 years.

People who lost the most weight (10% of their body weight or more) in the first year after diagnosis were most likely to have sustained remission.

The study “helped to confirm the low rate of diabetes remission and high rate of returning to hyperglycemia in real-world practice,” Andrea Luk, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told this news organization. “Over 80% of diabetes remission occurred within the first 5 years of a diabetes diagnosis. This is in line with our understanding that beta cell function will gradually decline over time, making diabetes remission increasingly difficult even with weight reduction.”

The study was published in PLOS Medicine.
 

Early Weight Management Works

Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that T2D remission can be achieved following sustained weight loss through bariatric surgery or lifestyle interventions, the authors noted. In this study, they investigated the association of weight change at 1 year after a diabetes diagnosis with the long-term incidence and sustainability of T2D remission in real-world settings, using data from the territory-wide Risk Assessment and Management Programme-Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM).

A total of 37,326 people with newly diagnosed T2D who were enrolled in the RAMP-DM between 2000 and 2017 were included and followed until 2019.

At baseline, participants’ mean age was 56.6 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.4 kg/m², and mean A1c was 7.7%, and 65% were using glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs).

T2D remission was defined as two consecutive A1c < 6.5% measurements at least 6 months apart without GLDs currently or in the previous 3 months.

During a median follow-up of 7.9 years, 6.1% of people achieved remission, with an incidence rate of 7.8 per 1000 person-years. The proportion was higher among those with greater weight loss: 14.4% of people who lost 10% of their body weight or more achieved remission compared with 9.9% of those with 5%-9.9% weight loss, 6.5% of those with 0%-4.9% weight loss, and 4.5% of those who gained weight.

After adjustment for age at diagnosis, sex, assessment year, BMI, other metabolic indices, smoking, alcohol drinking, and medication use, the hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes remission was 3.28 for those with 10% or greater weight loss within 1 year of diagnosis, 2.29 for 5%-9.9% weight loss, and 1.34 for 0%-4.9% weight loss compared to weight gain.

The incidence of diabetes remission in the study was significantly lower than that in clinical trials, possibly because trial participants were in structured programs that included intensive lifestyle interventions, regular monitoring and feedback, and reinforcement of a holistic approach to managing diabetes, the authors noted. Real-world settings may or may not include such interventions.

Further analyses showed that within a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 67.2% of people who had achieved diabetes remission returned to hyperglycemia — an incidence rate of 184.8 per 1000 person-years.

The adjusted HR for returning to hyperglycemia was 0.52 for people with 10% or greater weight loss, 0.78 for those with 5%-9.9% weight loss, and 0.90 for those with 0%-4.9% weight loss compared to people with weight gain.

In addition, diabetes remission was associated with a 31% (HR, 0.69) decreased risk for all-cause mortality.

The study “provides evidence for policymakers to design and implement early weight management interventions” for people diagnosed with T2D, the authors concluded.

Clinicians also have a role to play, Dr. Luk said. “At the first encounter with an individual with newly diagnosed T2D, clinicians should emphasize the importance of weight reduction and guide the individual on how this can be achieved through making healthy lifestyle choices. Pharmacotherapy and metabolic surgery for weight management can be considered in appropriate individuals.”

Overall, she added, “clinicians should be informed that the likelihood of achieving and maintaining diabetes remission is low, and patients should be counseled accordingly.”
 

Similar to US Experience

Mona Mshayekhi, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, commented on the study for this news organization.

“These findings mirror clinical experience in the US very well,” she said. “We know that sustained weight loss without the use of medications or surgery is extremely difficult in the real-world setting due to the hormonal drivers of obesity, in combination with socioeconomic challenges.”

The study was done before newer weight-management strategies such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were widely available, she noted. “This actually strengthens the finding that weight loss without the routine use of medications has a multitude of benefits, including diabetes remission and reduction of all-cause mortality.”

That said, she added, “I suspect that future studies with more modern cohorts will reveal much higher rates of diabetes remission with the use of newer medications.”

“Our ability to help our patients lose meaningful weight has been limited until recently,” she said. “With new tools in our armamentarium, clinicians need to take the lead in helping patients address and treat obesity and fight the stigma that prevents many from even discussing it with their providers.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Luk has received research grants or contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Junshi, Lee Pharmaceutical, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences, Sugardown, and Takeda and received travel grants and honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Dr. Mshayekhi reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Very few patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) achieve and sustain diabetes remission via weight loss alone, new research suggests.

Among more than 37,000 people with T2D in Hong Kong, only 6% had achieved and sustained diabetes remission solely through weight loss up to 8 years after diagnosis. Among those who initially achieved remission, 67% had hyperglycemia at 3 years.

People who lost the most weight (10% of their body weight or more) in the first year after diagnosis were most likely to have sustained remission.

The study “helped to confirm the low rate of diabetes remission and high rate of returning to hyperglycemia in real-world practice,” Andrea Luk, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told this news organization. “Over 80% of diabetes remission occurred within the first 5 years of a diabetes diagnosis. This is in line with our understanding that beta cell function will gradually decline over time, making diabetes remission increasingly difficult even with weight reduction.”

The study was published in PLOS Medicine.
 

Early Weight Management Works

Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that T2D remission can be achieved following sustained weight loss through bariatric surgery or lifestyle interventions, the authors noted. In this study, they investigated the association of weight change at 1 year after a diabetes diagnosis with the long-term incidence and sustainability of T2D remission in real-world settings, using data from the territory-wide Risk Assessment and Management Programme-Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM).

A total of 37,326 people with newly diagnosed T2D who were enrolled in the RAMP-DM between 2000 and 2017 were included and followed until 2019.

At baseline, participants’ mean age was 56.6 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.4 kg/m², and mean A1c was 7.7%, and 65% were using glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs).

T2D remission was defined as two consecutive A1c < 6.5% measurements at least 6 months apart without GLDs currently or in the previous 3 months.

During a median follow-up of 7.9 years, 6.1% of people achieved remission, with an incidence rate of 7.8 per 1000 person-years. The proportion was higher among those with greater weight loss: 14.4% of people who lost 10% of their body weight or more achieved remission compared with 9.9% of those with 5%-9.9% weight loss, 6.5% of those with 0%-4.9% weight loss, and 4.5% of those who gained weight.

After adjustment for age at diagnosis, sex, assessment year, BMI, other metabolic indices, smoking, alcohol drinking, and medication use, the hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes remission was 3.28 for those with 10% or greater weight loss within 1 year of diagnosis, 2.29 for 5%-9.9% weight loss, and 1.34 for 0%-4.9% weight loss compared to weight gain.

The incidence of diabetes remission in the study was significantly lower than that in clinical trials, possibly because trial participants were in structured programs that included intensive lifestyle interventions, regular monitoring and feedback, and reinforcement of a holistic approach to managing diabetes, the authors noted. Real-world settings may or may not include such interventions.

Further analyses showed that within a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 67.2% of people who had achieved diabetes remission returned to hyperglycemia — an incidence rate of 184.8 per 1000 person-years.

The adjusted HR for returning to hyperglycemia was 0.52 for people with 10% or greater weight loss, 0.78 for those with 5%-9.9% weight loss, and 0.90 for those with 0%-4.9% weight loss compared to people with weight gain.

In addition, diabetes remission was associated with a 31% (HR, 0.69) decreased risk for all-cause mortality.

The study “provides evidence for policymakers to design and implement early weight management interventions” for people diagnosed with T2D, the authors concluded.

Clinicians also have a role to play, Dr. Luk said. “At the first encounter with an individual with newly diagnosed T2D, clinicians should emphasize the importance of weight reduction and guide the individual on how this can be achieved through making healthy lifestyle choices. Pharmacotherapy and metabolic surgery for weight management can be considered in appropriate individuals.”

Overall, she added, “clinicians should be informed that the likelihood of achieving and maintaining diabetes remission is low, and patients should be counseled accordingly.”
 

Similar to US Experience

Mona Mshayekhi, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, commented on the study for this news organization.

“These findings mirror clinical experience in the US very well,” she said. “We know that sustained weight loss without the use of medications or surgery is extremely difficult in the real-world setting due to the hormonal drivers of obesity, in combination with socioeconomic challenges.”

The study was done before newer weight-management strategies such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were widely available, she noted. “This actually strengthens the finding that weight loss without the routine use of medications has a multitude of benefits, including diabetes remission and reduction of all-cause mortality.”

That said, she added, “I suspect that future studies with more modern cohorts will reveal much higher rates of diabetes remission with the use of newer medications.”

“Our ability to help our patients lose meaningful weight has been limited until recently,” she said. “With new tools in our armamentarium, clinicians need to take the lead in helping patients address and treat obesity and fight the stigma that prevents many from even discussing it with their providers.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Luk has received research grants or contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Junshi, Lee Pharmaceutical, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences, Sugardown, and Takeda and received travel grants and honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Dr. Mshayekhi reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Very few patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) achieve and sustain diabetes remission via weight loss alone, new research suggests.

Among more than 37,000 people with T2D in Hong Kong, only 6% had achieved and sustained diabetes remission solely through weight loss up to 8 years after diagnosis. Among those who initially achieved remission, 67% had hyperglycemia at 3 years.

People who lost the most weight (10% of their body weight or more) in the first year after diagnosis were most likely to have sustained remission.

The study “helped to confirm the low rate of diabetes remission and high rate of returning to hyperglycemia in real-world practice,” Andrea Luk, MD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, told this news organization. “Over 80% of diabetes remission occurred within the first 5 years of a diabetes diagnosis. This is in line with our understanding that beta cell function will gradually decline over time, making diabetes remission increasingly difficult even with weight reduction.”

The study was published in PLOS Medicine.
 

Early Weight Management Works

Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that T2D remission can be achieved following sustained weight loss through bariatric surgery or lifestyle interventions, the authors noted. In this study, they investigated the association of weight change at 1 year after a diabetes diagnosis with the long-term incidence and sustainability of T2D remission in real-world settings, using data from the territory-wide Risk Assessment and Management Programme-Diabetes Mellitus (RAMP-DM).

A total of 37,326 people with newly diagnosed T2D who were enrolled in the RAMP-DM between 2000 and 2017 were included and followed until 2019.

At baseline, participants’ mean age was 56.6 years, mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.4 kg/m², and mean A1c was 7.7%, and 65% were using glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs).

T2D remission was defined as two consecutive A1c < 6.5% measurements at least 6 months apart without GLDs currently or in the previous 3 months.

During a median follow-up of 7.9 years, 6.1% of people achieved remission, with an incidence rate of 7.8 per 1000 person-years. The proportion was higher among those with greater weight loss: 14.4% of people who lost 10% of their body weight or more achieved remission compared with 9.9% of those with 5%-9.9% weight loss, 6.5% of those with 0%-4.9% weight loss, and 4.5% of those who gained weight.

After adjustment for age at diagnosis, sex, assessment year, BMI, other metabolic indices, smoking, alcohol drinking, and medication use, the hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes remission was 3.28 for those with 10% or greater weight loss within 1 year of diagnosis, 2.29 for 5%-9.9% weight loss, and 1.34 for 0%-4.9% weight loss compared to weight gain.

The incidence of diabetes remission in the study was significantly lower than that in clinical trials, possibly because trial participants were in structured programs that included intensive lifestyle interventions, regular monitoring and feedback, and reinforcement of a holistic approach to managing diabetes, the authors noted. Real-world settings may or may not include such interventions.

Further analyses showed that within a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 67.2% of people who had achieved diabetes remission returned to hyperglycemia — an incidence rate of 184.8 per 1000 person-years.

The adjusted HR for returning to hyperglycemia was 0.52 for people with 10% or greater weight loss, 0.78 for those with 5%-9.9% weight loss, and 0.90 for those with 0%-4.9% weight loss compared to people with weight gain.

In addition, diabetes remission was associated with a 31% (HR, 0.69) decreased risk for all-cause mortality.

The study “provides evidence for policymakers to design and implement early weight management interventions” for people diagnosed with T2D, the authors concluded.

Clinicians also have a role to play, Dr. Luk said. “At the first encounter with an individual with newly diagnosed T2D, clinicians should emphasize the importance of weight reduction and guide the individual on how this can be achieved through making healthy lifestyle choices. Pharmacotherapy and metabolic surgery for weight management can be considered in appropriate individuals.”

Overall, she added, “clinicians should be informed that the likelihood of achieving and maintaining diabetes remission is low, and patients should be counseled accordingly.”
 

Similar to US Experience

Mona Mshayekhi, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, commented on the study for this news organization.

“These findings mirror clinical experience in the US very well,” she said. “We know that sustained weight loss without the use of medications or surgery is extremely difficult in the real-world setting due to the hormonal drivers of obesity, in combination with socioeconomic challenges.”

The study was done before newer weight-management strategies such as glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists were widely available, she noted. “This actually strengthens the finding that weight loss without the routine use of medications has a multitude of benefits, including diabetes remission and reduction of all-cause mortality.”

That said, she added, “I suspect that future studies with more modern cohorts will reveal much higher rates of diabetes remission with the use of newer medications.”

“Our ability to help our patients lose meaningful weight has been limited until recently,” she said. “With new tools in our armamentarium, clinicians need to take the lead in helping patients address and treat obesity and fight the stigma that prevents many from even discussing it with their providers.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Luk has received research grants or contracts from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Junshi, Lee Pharmaceutical, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi, Shanghai Junshi Biosciences, Sugardown, and Takeda and received travel grants and honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and MSD. Dr. Mshayekhi reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections pose a minimal risk of accelerating diabetes for most people, despite temporarily elevating blood glucose levels, according to a study published in Clinical Diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Almost half of Americans with diabetes have arthritis, so glycemic control is a concern for many receiving IACS injections.
• IACS injections are known to cause short-term hyperglycemia, but their long-term effects on glycemic control are not well studied.
• For the retrospective cohort study, researchers at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, used electronic health records from 1169 adults who had received an IACS injection in one large joint between 2012 and 2018.
• They analyzed data on A1C levels for study participants from 18 months before and after the injections.
• Researchers assessed if participants had a greater-than-expected (defined as an increase of more than 0.5% above expected) concentration of A1C after the injection, and examined rates of diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome in the 30 days following an injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 16% of people experienced a greater-than-expected A1C level after receiving an injection.
• A1C levels rose by an average of 1.2% in the greater-than-expected group, but decreased by an average of 0.2% in the average group.
• One patient had an episode of severe hyperglycemia that was linked to the injection.
• A baseline level of A1C above 8% was the only factor associated with a greater-than-expected increase in the marker after an IACS injection.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although most patients do not experience an increase in A1C after IACS, clinicians should counsel patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes about risks of further hyperglycemia after IACS administration,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE: 

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was retrospective and could not establish causation. In addition, the population was of residents from one county in Minnesota, and was not racially or ethnically diverse. Details about the injection, such as location and total dose, were not available. The study also did not include a control group. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Mayo Clinic and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections pose a minimal risk of accelerating diabetes for most people, despite temporarily elevating blood glucose levels, according to a study published in Clinical Diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Almost half of Americans with diabetes have arthritis, so glycemic control is a concern for many receiving IACS injections.
• IACS injections are known to cause short-term hyperglycemia, but their long-term effects on glycemic control are not well studied.
• For the retrospective cohort study, researchers at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, used electronic health records from 1169 adults who had received an IACS injection in one large joint between 2012 and 2018.
• They analyzed data on A1C levels for study participants from 18 months before and after the injections.
• Researchers assessed if participants had a greater-than-expected (defined as an increase of more than 0.5% above expected) concentration of A1C after the injection, and examined rates of diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome in the 30 days following an injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 16% of people experienced a greater-than-expected A1C level after receiving an injection.
• A1C levels rose by an average of 1.2% in the greater-than-expected group, but decreased by an average of 0.2% in the average group.
• One patient had an episode of severe hyperglycemia that was linked to the injection.
• A baseline level of A1C above 8% was the only factor associated with a greater-than-expected increase in the marker after an IACS injection.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although most patients do not experience an increase in A1C after IACS, clinicians should counsel patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes about risks of further hyperglycemia after IACS administration,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE: 

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was retrospective and could not establish causation. In addition, the population was of residents from one county in Minnesota, and was not racially or ethnically diverse. Details about the injection, such as location and total dose, were not available. The study also did not include a control group. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Mayo Clinic and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections pose a minimal risk of accelerating diabetes for most people, despite temporarily elevating blood glucose levels, according to a study published in Clinical Diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Almost half of Americans with diabetes have arthritis, so glycemic control is a concern for many receiving IACS injections.
• IACS injections are known to cause short-term hyperglycemia, but their long-term effects on glycemic control are not well studied.
• For the retrospective cohort study, researchers at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, used electronic health records from 1169 adults who had received an IACS injection in one large joint between 2012 and 2018.
• They analyzed data on A1C levels for study participants from 18 months before and after the injections.
• Researchers assessed if participants had a greater-than-expected (defined as an increase of more than 0.5% above expected) concentration of A1C after the injection, and examined rates of diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic syndrome in the 30 days following an injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 16% of people experienced a greater-than-expected A1C level after receiving an injection.
• A1C levels rose by an average of 1.2% in the greater-than-expected group, but decreased by an average of 0.2% in the average group.
• One patient had an episode of severe hyperglycemia that was linked to the injection.
• A baseline level of A1C above 8% was the only factor associated with a greater-than-expected increase in the marker after an IACS injection.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although most patients do not experience an increase in A1C after IACS, clinicians should counsel patients with suboptimally controlled diabetes about risks of further hyperglycemia after IACS administration,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE: 

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was retrospective and could not establish causation. In addition, the population was of residents from one county in Minnesota, and was not racially or ethnically diverse. Details about the injection, such as location and total dose, were not available. The study also did not include a control group. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Mayo Clinic and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are associated with a lower risk for sight-threatening retinopathy than other second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study including 3,544,383 patients with newly diagnosed T2D.
• During the 5-year study period, 159,965 patients were treated with SGLT2 inhibitors, 304,383 received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, 108,420 took pioglitazone, and 189,618 received sulfonylurea.
• The propensity score matching found 65,930 pairs of patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4 inhibitors, 93,760 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs pioglitazone, and 42,121 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs sulfonylurea.
• The main outcome was sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with at least two outpatient visits or one hospitalization or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

TAKEAWAY:

• SGLT2 inhibitors reduced sight-threatening retinopathy risk by 43% vs DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57), 38% vs sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.62), and 25% vs pioglitazone (aHR, 0.75; P < .001 for all).
• Similarly, the cumulative incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4i, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea (P < .001 for all).
• All three SGLT2 inhibitor treatments, namely, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin, were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea in reducing the risk for sight-threatening retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“SGLT2i treatments were as safe and effective in slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy as in lowering the risk for diabetic nephropathy in patients with T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, MD, a private practitioner from Taiwan, and was published online on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There were insufficient data regarding the participants’ alcohol use, physical activity, smoking status, and family history, which may have had an impact on the results.

The study mainly involved individuals of Taiwanese ethnicity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, the MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are associated with a lower risk for sight-threatening retinopathy than other second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study including 3,544,383 patients with newly diagnosed T2D.
• During the 5-year study period, 159,965 patients were treated with SGLT2 inhibitors, 304,383 received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, 108,420 took pioglitazone, and 189,618 received sulfonylurea.
• The propensity score matching found 65,930 pairs of patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4 inhibitors, 93,760 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs pioglitazone, and 42,121 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs sulfonylurea.
• The main outcome was sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with at least two outpatient visits or one hospitalization or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

TAKEAWAY:

• SGLT2 inhibitors reduced sight-threatening retinopathy risk by 43% vs DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57), 38% vs sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.62), and 25% vs pioglitazone (aHR, 0.75; P < .001 for all).
• Similarly, the cumulative incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4i, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea (P < .001 for all).
• All three SGLT2 inhibitor treatments, namely, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin, were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea in reducing the risk for sight-threatening retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“SGLT2i treatments were as safe and effective in slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy as in lowering the risk for diabetic nephropathy in patients with T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, MD, a private practitioner from Taiwan, and was published online on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There were insufficient data regarding the participants’ alcohol use, physical activity, smoking status, and family history, which may have had an impact on the results.

The study mainly involved individuals of Taiwanese ethnicity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, the MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are associated with a lower risk for sight-threatening retinopathy than other second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study including 3,544,383 patients with newly diagnosed T2D.
• During the 5-year study period, 159,965 patients were treated with SGLT2 inhibitors, 304,383 received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, 108,420 took pioglitazone, and 189,618 received sulfonylurea.
• The propensity score matching found 65,930 pairs of patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4 inhibitors, 93,760 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs pioglitazone, and 42,121 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs sulfonylurea.
• The main outcome was sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with at least two outpatient visits or one hospitalization or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

TAKEAWAY:

• SGLT2 inhibitors reduced sight-threatening retinopathy risk by 43% vs DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57), 38% vs sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.62), and 25% vs pioglitazone (aHR, 0.75; P < .001 for all).
• Similarly, the cumulative incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4i, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea (P < .001 for all).
• All three SGLT2 inhibitor treatments, namely, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin, were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea in reducing the risk for sight-threatening retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“SGLT2i treatments were as safe and effective in slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy as in lowering the risk for diabetic nephropathy in patients with T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, MD, a private practitioner from Taiwan, and was published online on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There were insufficient data regarding the participants’ alcohol use, physical activity, smoking status, and family history, which may have had an impact on the results.

The study mainly involved individuals of Taiwanese ethnicity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, the MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis showed that all doses of tirzepatide, a novel twincretin molecule, reduced albuminuria levels without affecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials compared the effects of tirzepatide and control treatment (placebo or any active comparator) on albuminuria levels and renal function in patients with T2D.
• The pooled data included 6226 patients with T2D who received tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) and 3307 participants in the control group who received placebo, semaglutide, or insulin.
• The primary outcome was the difference in absolute change in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline between the tirzepatide and control groups.
• The secondary efficacy endpoint was the comparative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, tirzepatide reduced UACR by ~27% (mean difference [MD], −26.9%; P < .001) compared with controls.
• The reduction in UACR was consistent across all tirzepatide doses (5 mg: MD, −23.12%; 10 mg: MD, −27.87%; 15 mg: MD, −27.15).
• Benefits of tirzepatide were even more pronounced in patients with increased albuminuria levels (UACR ≥ 30 mg/g) at baseline (MD, −41.42%; P < .001) than in controls.
• However, tirzepatide vs control treatment did not have a significant effect on eGFR levels (P = .46), which indicated no negative effect of tirzepatide on renal function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tirzepatide seems to be a ‘rising star’ for the prevention and delaying of chronic kidney disease and related, surrogate renal outcomes in patients with T2DM,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paschalis Karakasis, MD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, led this study, which was published online December 20, 2023, in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Bias may have come from the open-label design in the included randomized controlled trials. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the effect of tirzepatide on chronic kidney disease pathogenesis are speculative.

DISCLOSURES:

The paper did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis showed that all doses of tirzepatide, a novel twincretin molecule, reduced albuminuria levels without affecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials compared the effects of tirzepatide and control treatment (placebo or any active comparator) on albuminuria levels and renal function in patients with T2D.
• The pooled data included 6226 patients with T2D who received tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) and 3307 participants in the control group who received placebo, semaglutide, or insulin.
• The primary outcome was the difference in absolute change in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline between the tirzepatide and control groups.
• The secondary efficacy endpoint was the comparative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, tirzepatide reduced UACR by ~27% (mean difference [MD], −26.9%; P < .001) compared with controls.
• The reduction in UACR was consistent across all tirzepatide doses (5 mg: MD, −23.12%; 10 mg: MD, −27.87%; 15 mg: MD, −27.15).
• Benefits of tirzepatide were even more pronounced in patients with increased albuminuria levels (UACR ≥ 30 mg/g) at baseline (MD, −41.42%; P < .001) than in controls.
• However, tirzepatide vs control treatment did not have a significant effect on eGFR levels (P = .46), which indicated no negative effect of tirzepatide on renal function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tirzepatide seems to be a ‘rising star’ for the prevention and delaying of chronic kidney disease and related, surrogate renal outcomes in patients with T2DM,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paschalis Karakasis, MD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, led this study, which was published online December 20, 2023, in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Bias may have come from the open-label design in the included randomized controlled trials. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the effect of tirzepatide on chronic kidney disease pathogenesis are speculative.

DISCLOSURES:

The paper did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis showed that all doses of tirzepatide, a novel twincretin molecule, reduced albuminuria levels without affecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials compared the effects of tirzepatide and control treatment (placebo or any active comparator) on albuminuria levels and renal function in patients with T2D.
• The pooled data included 6226 patients with T2D who received tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) and 3307 participants in the control group who received placebo, semaglutide, or insulin.
• The primary outcome was the difference in absolute change in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline between the tirzepatide and control groups.
• The secondary efficacy endpoint was the comparative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, tirzepatide reduced UACR by ~27% (mean difference [MD], −26.9%; P < .001) compared with controls.
• The reduction in UACR was consistent across all tirzepatide doses (5 mg: MD, −23.12%; 10 mg: MD, −27.87%; 15 mg: MD, −27.15).
• Benefits of tirzepatide were even more pronounced in patients with increased albuminuria levels (UACR ≥ 30 mg/g) at baseline (MD, −41.42%; P < .001) than in controls.
• However, tirzepatide vs control treatment did not have a significant effect on eGFR levels (P = .46), which indicated no negative effect of tirzepatide on renal function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tirzepatide seems to be a ‘rising star’ for the prevention and delaying of chronic kidney disease and related, surrogate renal outcomes in patients with T2DM,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paschalis Karakasis, MD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, led this study, which was published online December 20, 2023, in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Bias may have come from the open-label design in the included randomized controlled trials. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the effect of tirzepatide on chronic kidney disease pathogenesis are speculative.

DISCLOSURES:

The paper did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A1c level strongly predicts the risk of developing type 2 diabetes among adolescents with overweight or obesity, new data suggested.

In a large California healthcare database over a 10-year period, the incidence of type 2 diabetes was relatively low overall among adolescents with overweight and obesity. However, the risk increased with baseline A1c levels above 6.0% as well as in those with more severe obesity, women, and Asian or Pacific Islanders.

The new findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by pediatric endocrinologist Francis M. Hoe, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Roseville Medical Center, Roseville, California, and colleagues.

Previous studies have examined the incidence of type 2 diabetes among all youth, regardless of weight class. This is one of the first large population studies to examine the incidence and risk for type 2 diabetes by incremental level of A1c in a racially and ethnically diverse group of youth with overweight and obesity, Dr. Hoe told this news organization in an interview.

“This study was only possible to do because Kaiser Permanente Northern California has nearly 1 million pediatric members. The biggest thing we learned is that risk for type 2 diabetes is low in overweight and obese youth, especially those with an HbA1c less than 5.9%,” he said.
 

Zeroing in on Those at Greatest Risk for Type 2 Diabetes

Currently, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends screening for type 2 diabetes in adolescents with overweight (body mass index [BMI], 85th percentile or greater) or obesity (≥ 95th) who have at least one additional risk factor, including family history of type 2 diabetes and Native American, Black, or Hispanic ethnicity. About one in four US adolescents qualify by those criteria, the authors noted in the paper.

And, as for adults, ADA recommends subsequent annual diabetes screening in youth identified as having “prediabetes,” that is, a A1c level between 5.7% and 6.5%.

The new study confirmed that adolescents with A1c in the upper end of the prediabetes range were at a greater risk for type 2 diabetes. But those individuals were the minority. Adolescents with overweight/obesity who had baseline A1c levels in the lower end of the prediabetes range, 5.7%-5.8%, accounted for two thirds of those with prediabetes in the study population and had a very low incidence of type 2 diabetes compared with those with higher A1c levels.

“Specifically, we found an annual type 2 diabetes incidence of 0.2% for HbA1c of 5.7%-5.8%, which is much lower than adults. These adolescents will likely benefit from lifestyle intervention. But because their risk of developing type 2 diabetes is lower, they probably don’t need to be screened annually, as currently recommended by the ADA,” Dr. Hoe said.

Similarly, he added, “since obesity severity was associated with a higher risk for type 2 diabetes, increases in BMI percentile should also prompt consideration of repeat diabetes screening.”
 

Large Database Allows for Detailed Findings

The study population was 74,552 adolescents aged 10-17 years with overweight or obesity, of whom 49.4% were male, 64.6% were younger than 15 years, and 73.1% had obesity. Only 21.6% were White, while 43.6% were Hispanic, 11.1% Black, and 17.6% Asian or Pacific Islander.

Nearly a quarter, 22.9%, had baseline A1c in the prediabetes range of 5.7%-6.4%. Mean A1c rose with BMI category from overweight to moderate to severe obesity (P < .001 for each comparison). Baseline A1c was highest (5.53%) in Black adolescents and lowest in White teens (5.38%), also significant differences by group (P < .001).

Of the total 698 who developed diabetes during the follow-up, 89.7% were classified as having type 2 diabetes, with a median 3.8 years from baseline to diagnosis.

The overall incidence rate of type 2 diabetes during the follow-up was 2.1 per 1000 person-years. As the baseline A1c rose from less than 5.5% to 6.0%, from 6.1% to 6.2%, and from 6.3% to 6.4%, those incidence rates were 0.8, 8.1, 21.8, and 68.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

In a multivariate analysis, compared to baseline A1c below 5.5%, increased risk was ninefold for A1c 5.9%-6.0%, 23-fold for 6.1%-6.2%, and 72-fold for 6.3%-6.4%.

The incidence rates were higher in female than in male adolescents (2.4 vs 1.8 per 1000 person-years) and increased by BMI category from 0.6 to 1.3 to 4.3 for those with overweight, moderate obesity, and severe obesity, respectively.

Type 2 diabetes incidence per 1000 person-years also varied by race and ethnicity, ranging from 1.3 for White adolescents to 3.0 for Asian or Pacific Islanders.

“We plan on further exploring the effect of the weight and BMI change over time and how that may affect type 2 diabetes risk,” Dr. Hoe told this news organization.

This study was supported by a grant from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health program. Dr. Hoe and his coauthors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 37 million Americans, or 15%, have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but 9 in 10 adults with the condition are not aware of their diagnosis. A recent study from Stanford University found that screening asymptomatic adults over the age of 35 years would be a cost-effective strategy for identifying patients with CKD before they develop severe illness. 

What should primary care providers be doing differently? 

The current standard of care is to screen people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of developing CKD, most commonly diabetes and hypertension. That’s why the American Diabetes Association recommends annual screening for CKD in patients with type 1 diabetes as well as those with type 2 diabetes. 

And the American Heart Association (AHA) released an advisory last year that defined cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, a constellation of conditions that often occur together: obesity, diabetes, CKD, and cardiovascular disease. They propose a staged approach to identifying and monitoring CKM throughout the lifespan, which includes regular monitoring of the urine albumin-creatinine ratio in patients who have developed diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, or any signs of kidney disease.

But despite recognition from the subspecialty professional societies of the importance of screening persons with risk factors — additional conditions are obesity and family history of CKD — real-world implementation lags. 

Sylvia Rosas, MD, is a nephrologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who also serves as president of the National Kidney Foundation. In an interview with this news organization, she cited several alarming facts about the state of CKD screening in the United States. 

“Of people with diabetes who have insurance, only 40% get both the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the albumin performed, and for those who have hypertension, only 10%,” Dr. Rosas said. She is referring to a urine spot test that measures the amount of albumin in the urine, which is then paired with a serum measurement of creatinine to estimate the glomerular filtration rate. Both tests are needed to detect the asymptomatic stages of CKD, because the presence of albumin in the urine usually precedes drops in the GFR, which indicates more serious disease. 

Dr. Rosas said she is frustrated by the low rate of testing compared with other commonly recommended preventive screenings, given the low cost and simplicity of assessment. Serum creatinine often is obtained as part of a routine chemistry panel, and the albumin test requires a single spot urine test. Yet, in 2018, 61% of US adults aged 50-75 years had received a colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Compared with the high price and inconvenience of undergoing colonoscopy, Dr. Rosas has trouble believing that “we cannot get more than 40% of people [with diabetes] to pee in a cup.” 

But the biggest issue is that if people with risk factors don’t get screened before they develop symptoms of CKD, it is often too late to avoid dialysis or the need for transplantation. 

The early warning symptoms are few, according to Nisha Bansal, MD, a professor in the department of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle. “New hypertension is a really important early sign,” Dr. Bansal said. “We know kidney disease almost certainly causes hypertension, so I would definitely think about screening for kidney disease.” Other findings on exam are the appearance of new edema or signs of fluid retention in the hands or around the eyes, along with findings in the urine of albumin, protein, or blood. 

But most patients don’t have any symptoms in the early stages, and they can be nonspecific. “It is fatigue and some nausea,” Dr. Rosas said. “It’s only way at the end that you start vomiting, get itchy, or have hiccups.” Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that over one third of patients at high risk for kidney failure are unaware of their disease. According to Dr. Rosas, these are patients who often receive the diagnosis of CKD and start dialysis the same day. 
 

Why Not Screen Everyone?

For many conditions, like HIV or different types of cancer, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends broad screening of asymptomatic individuals so that early treatment can improve outcomes. 

But when the USPSTF considered the question in 2012 of whether adults should be screened for CKD regardless of symptoms, it found little evidence that early detection could change the course of their illness. At that time, the standard of care for treating early stages of CKD generally focused on treating the comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. 

But the equation has changed with the availability of new drugs to treat CKD, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).

“I consider these blockbuster drugs,” Dr. Bansal said. “For the first time in decades, we’re showing that this class of medications, the SGLT2 inhibitors, substantially reduce risk of loss of kidney function.”

Expressed in the lumen of the proximal renal tubules, SGLT2 reabsorbs filtered glucose from the tubular lumen. Inhibition of SGLT2 promotes urinary glucose excretion and reduces sodium reabsorption, increasing delivery of sodium to the distal tubule. The first SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin, was approved in 2013 for use as an antihyperglycemic agent but subsequently was shown to have serendipitous benefits for the heart and kidneys. 

Clinical trials have documented reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as decreases in the risk for progression to end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. Updated international guidelines from 2022 recommend treating all patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD with an estimated GFR ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 with an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

But several trials of SGLT2 inhibitors also demonstrated benefits in reducing the risk for cardiovascular-related death or hospitalization for heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. Although initial approval from the US Food and Drug Administration was limited to patients with diabetes and heart failure, the agency has recently expanded its indications to include adults with CKD who do not have diabetes. 

Dr. Bansal said she was happy to see this widening of the indications, which makes more patients eligible to receive SGLT2 inhibitors. “I really think this early CKD group is a great group to consider for those medications,” she said. 

Dr. Bansal also pointed out that MRAs are another class of drugs with an interesting history. Earlier steroidal MRAs were found to have anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties, and in 1960 spironolactone was approved for use as a diuretic for the management of edema, primary aldosteronism, and hypertension. But even as their use in cardiology rose, MRAs had less utility for CKD, given adverse events such as hyperkalemia and hormonal effects like gynecomastia. 

But the latest generation of nonsteroidal MRAs (nsMRAs) has higher selectivity for the mineralocorticoid receptor than sex-steroid hormone receptors, reducing androgenic side effects and preventing elevated potassium. Finerenone, the only nsMRA approved in the United States, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and CKD outcomes, including kidney failure, decrease in estimated GFR, or death from renal causes. 
 

EPIC Changes Coming?

In light of treatment advances that offer hope of preventing progression of CKD in patients identified early, both the National Kidney Foundation and the American Kidney Fund lobbied the USPSTF in 2022 to conduct a fresh review of recent data to evaluate the need for updated screening recommendations. 

The task force completed development of a research plan and collection of public comments in early 2023 and is now reviewing evidence before developing a draft recommendation. 

A team of health policy researchers from Stanford is hoping that some of their recently published work will attract the panel’s attention. The first study, published in 2022, evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor that has been shown to reduce mortality by 48% in CKD patients without diabetes. 

The Stanford team found that adding dapagliflozin to standard care for these patients improved life expectancy by 2 years and reduced the percentage of those who needed dialysis or kidney transplant from 17% to 11%. 

More recently, Marika Cusick, a doctoral candidate in health policy at the Stanford School of Medicine in Stanford, California, served as first author of an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic adults. “We assessed screening for albuminuria in conjunction with conventional CKD therapy in addition to this new SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs,” she said. They projected how this might change CKD progression in US adults who are aged 35 or older compared with standard therapy alone. 

The findings were favorable. “A one-time screening would result in a reduction of 398,000 cases of kidney replacement therapy [defined as needing either dialysis or renal transplant] among 158 million US adults who are currently aged 35-75 years,” Ms. Cusick told this news organization.

In terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a one-time screening at age 55 years yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per QALY. Screening every 10 years between the ages of 35 and 75 years cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained. 

According to Doug Owens, MD, professor and chair of the department of health policy at Stanford School of Medicine, “There’s a societal decision about how much are we willing to pay for additional length and quality of life. And this fits within what is generally considered reasonable for the US.” 

For example, in the United States, screening for breast cancer among women aged 40-64 years costs $51,000 per QALY, whereas screening for lung cancer using USPSTF guidelines ranges from $72,639 to $156,774 per QALY. 

A former member of the USPSTF, Owens predicted that the current review process would take at least another year. Meanwhile, he and Ms. Cusick are hoping that their work influences the USPSTF to recommend screening asymptomatic adults. “Increasing the awareness of these drugs and their effectiveness is a crucial first step,” he said. 

Although adherence to current recommendations for screening of people at risk is poor, Dr. Rosas suggested that the USPSTF guidelines would be more influential in changing practice among primary care physicians than subspecialty guidelines would. 

“When you have a recommendation like that, they’re putting it in the electronic health record,” she said. By adding best practice alerts to their electronic health record systems, health systems can make it easier for primary care doctors to check all the boxes. 

In line with the AHA’s holistic approach towards managing cardiovascular illnesses, CKD, and metabolic disease, Dr. Bansal suggested an additional strategy: “I think we’re moving toward more interdisciplinary care models, where primary care doctors, nephrologist, cardiologists, and endocrinologists — all of us — should be working together in a collaborative care model, to help break down some of these barriers in terms of screening as well as implementation of these therapies.”

Dr. Bansal, Ms. Cusick, and Dr. Owens reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosas receives funding from AstraZeneca and Bayer for serving on advisory boards and clinical research funding, as well as funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for clinical trials. 
 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 37 million Americans, or 15%, have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but 9 in 10 adults with the condition are not aware of their diagnosis. A recent study from Stanford University found that screening asymptomatic adults over the age of 35 years would be a cost-effective strategy for identifying patients with CKD before they develop severe illness. 

What should primary care providers be doing differently? 

The current standard of care is to screen people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of developing CKD, most commonly diabetes and hypertension. That’s why the American Diabetes Association recommends annual screening for CKD in patients with type 1 diabetes as well as those with type 2 diabetes. 

And the American Heart Association (AHA) released an advisory last year that defined cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, a constellation of conditions that often occur together: obesity, diabetes, CKD, and cardiovascular disease. They propose a staged approach to identifying and monitoring CKM throughout the lifespan, which includes regular monitoring of the urine albumin-creatinine ratio in patients who have developed diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, or any signs of kidney disease.

But despite recognition from the subspecialty professional societies of the importance of screening persons with risk factors — additional conditions are obesity and family history of CKD — real-world implementation lags. 

Sylvia Rosas, MD, is a nephrologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who also serves as president of the National Kidney Foundation. In an interview with this news organization, she cited several alarming facts about the state of CKD screening in the United States. 

“Of people with diabetes who have insurance, only 40% get both the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the albumin performed, and for those who have hypertension, only 10%,” Dr. Rosas said. She is referring to a urine spot test that measures the amount of albumin in the urine, which is then paired with a serum measurement of creatinine to estimate the glomerular filtration rate. Both tests are needed to detect the asymptomatic stages of CKD, because the presence of albumin in the urine usually precedes drops in the GFR, which indicates more serious disease. 

Dr. Rosas said she is frustrated by the low rate of testing compared with other commonly recommended preventive screenings, given the low cost and simplicity of assessment. Serum creatinine often is obtained as part of a routine chemistry panel, and the albumin test requires a single spot urine test. Yet, in 2018, 61% of US adults aged 50-75 years had received a colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Compared with the high price and inconvenience of undergoing colonoscopy, Dr. Rosas has trouble believing that “we cannot get more than 40% of people [with diabetes] to pee in a cup.” 

But the biggest issue is that if people with risk factors don’t get screened before they develop symptoms of CKD, it is often too late to avoid dialysis or the need for transplantation. 

The early warning symptoms are few, according to Nisha Bansal, MD, a professor in the department of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle. “New hypertension is a really important early sign,” Dr. Bansal said. “We know kidney disease almost certainly causes hypertension, so I would definitely think about screening for kidney disease.” Other findings on exam are the appearance of new edema or signs of fluid retention in the hands or around the eyes, along with findings in the urine of albumin, protein, or blood. 

But most patients don’t have any symptoms in the early stages, and they can be nonspecific. “It is fatigue and some nausea,” Dr. Rosas said. “It’s only way at the end that you start vomiting, get itchy, or have hiccups.” Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that over one third of patients at high risk for kidney failure are unaware of their disease. According to Dr. Rosas, these are patients who often receive the diagnosis of CKD and start dialysis the same day. 
 

Why Not Screen Everyone?

For many conditions, like HIV or different types of cancer, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends broad screening of asymptomatic individuals so that early treatment can improve outcomes. 

But when the USPSTF considered the question in 2012 of whether adults should be screened for CKD regardless of symptoms, it found little evidence that early detection could change the course of their illness. At that time, the standard of care for treating early stages of CKD generally focused on treating the comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. 

But the equation has changed with the availability of new drugs to treat CKD, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).

“I consider these blockbuster drugs,” Dr. Bansal said. “For the first time in decades, we’re showing that this class of medications, the SGLT2 inhibitors, substantially reduce risk of loss of kidney function.”

Expressed in the lumen of the proximal renal tubules, SGLT2 reabsorbs filtered glucose from the tubular lumen. Inhibition of SGLT2 promotes urinary glucose excretion and reduces sodium reabsorption, increasing delivery of sodium to the distal tubule. The first SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin, was approved in 2013 for use as an antihyperglycemic agent but subsequently was shown to have serendipitous benefits for the heart and kidneys. 

Clinical trials have documented reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as decreases in the risk for progression to end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. Updated international guidelines from 2022 recommend treating all patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD with an estimated GFR ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 with an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

But several trials of SGLT2 inhibitors also demonstrated benefits in reducing the risk for cardiovascular-related death or hospitalization for heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. Although initial approval from the US Food and Drug Administration was limited to patients with diabetes and heart failure, the agency has recently expanded its indications to include adults with CKD who do not have diabetes. 

Dr. Bansal said she was happy to see this widening of the indications, which makes more patients eligible to receive SGLT2 inhibitors. “I really think this early CKD group is a great group to consider for those medications,” she said. 

Dr. Bansal also pointed out that MRAs are another class of drugs with an interesting history. Earlier steroidal MRAs were found to have anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties, and in 1960 spironolactone was approved for use as a diuretic for the management of edema, primary aldosteronism, and hypertension. But even as their use in cardiology rose, MRAs had less utility for CKD, given adverse events such as hyperkalemia and hormonal effects like gynecomastia. 

But the latest generation of nonsteroidal MRAs (nsMRAs) has higher selectivity for the mineralocorticoid receptor than sex-steroid hormone receptors, reducing androgenic side effects and preventing elevated potassium. Finerenone, the only nsMRA approved in the United States, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and CKD outcomes, including kidney failure, decrease in estimated GFR, or death from renal causes. 
 

EPIC Changes Coming?

In light of treatment advances that offer hope of preventing progression of CKD in patients identified early, both the National Kidney Foundation and the American Kidney Fund lobbied the USPSTF in 2022 to conduct a fresh review of recent data to evaluate the need for updated screening recommendations. 

The task force completed development of a research plan and collection of public comments in early 2023 and is now reviewing evidence before developing a draft recommendation. 

A team of health policy researchers from Stanford is hoping that some of their recently published work will attract the panel’s attention. The first study, published in 2022, evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor that has been shown to reduce mortality by 48% in CKD patients without diabetes. 

The Stanford team found that adding dapagliflozin to standard care for these patients improved life expectancy by 2 years and reduced the percentage of those who needed dialysis or kidney transplant from 17% to 11%. 

More recently, Marika Cusick, a doctoral candidate in health policy at the Stanford School of Medicine in Stanford, California, served as first author of an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic adults. “We assessed screening for albuminuria in conjunction with conventional CKD therapy in addition to this new SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs,” she said. They projected how this might change CKD progression in US adults who are aged 35 or older compared with standard therapy alone. 

The findings were favorable. “A one-time screening would result in a reduction of 398,000 cases of kidney replacement therapy [defined as needing either dialysis or renal transplant] among 158 million US adults who are currently aged 35-75 years,” Ms. Cusick told this news organization.

In terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a one-time screening at age 55 years yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per QALY. Screening every 10 years between the ages of 35 and 75 years cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained. 

According to Doug Owens, MD, professor and chair of the department of health policy at Stanford School of Medicine, “There’s a societal decision about how much are we willing to pay for additional length and quality of life. And this fits within what is generally considered reasonable for the US.” 

For example, in the United States, screening for breast cancer among women aged 40-64 years costs $51,000 per QALY, whereas screening for lung cancer using USPSTF guidelines ranges from $72,639 to $156,774 per QALY. 

A former member of the USPSTF, Owens predicted that the current review process would take at least another year. Meanwhile, he and Ms. Cusick are hoping that their work influences the USPSTF to recommend screening asymptomatic adults. “Increasing the awareness of these drugs and their effectiveness is a crucial first step,” he said. 

Although adherence to current recommendations for screening of people at risk is poor, Dr. Rosas suggested that the USPSTF guidelines would be more influential in changing practice among primary care physicians than subspecialty guidelines would. 

“When you have a recommendation like that, they’re putting it in the electronic health record,” she said. By adding best practice alerts to their electronic health record systems, health systems can make it easier for primary care doctors to check all the boxes. 

In line with the AHA’s holistic approach towards managing cardiovascular illnesses, CKD, and metabolic disease, Dr. Bansal suggested an additional strategy: “I think we’re moving toward more interdisciplinary care models, where primary care doctors, nephrologist, cardiologists, and endocrinologists — all of us — should be working together in a collaborative care model, to help break down some of these barriers in terms of screening as well as implementation of these therapies.”

Dr. Bansal, Ms. Cusick, and Dr. Owens reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosas receives funding from AstraZeneca and Bayer for serving on advisory boards and clinical research funding, as well as funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for clinical trials. 
 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 37 million Americans, or 15%, have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but 9 in 10 adults with the condition are not aware of their diagnosis. A recent study from Stanford University found that screening asymptomatic adults over the age of 35 years would be a cost-effective strategy for identifying patients with CKD before they develop severe illness. 

What should primary care providers be doing differently? 

The current standard of care is to screen people with underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of developing CKD, most commonly diabetes and hypertension. That’s why the American Diabetes Association recommends annual screening for CKD in patients with type 1 diabetes as well as those with type 2 diabetes. 

And the American Heart Association (AHA) released an advisory last year that defined cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, a constellation of conditions that often occur together: obesity, diabetes, CKD, and cardiovascular disease. They propose a staged approach to identifying and monitoring CKM throughout the lifespan, which includes regular monitoring of the urine albumin-creatinine ratio in patients who have developed diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, or any signs of kidney disease.

But despite recognition from the subspecialty professional societies of the importance of screening persons with risk factors — additional conditions are obesity and family history of CKD — real-world implementation lags. 

Sylvia Rosas, MD, is a nephrologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who also serves as president of the National Kidney Foundation. In an interview with this news organization, she cited several alarming facts about the state of CKD screening in the United States. 

“Of people with diabetes who have insurance, only 40% get both the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the albumin performed, and for those who have hypertension, only 10%,” Dr. Rosas said. She is referring to a urine spot test that measures the amount of albumin in the urine, which is then paired with a serum measurement of creatinine to estimate the glomerular filtration rate. Both tests are needed to detect the asymptomatic stages of CKD, because the presence of albumin in the urine usually precedes drops in the GFR, which indicates more serious disease. 

Dr. Rosas said she is frustrated by the low rate of testing compared with other commonly recommended preventive screenings, given the low cost and simplicity of assessment. Serum creatinine often is obtained as part of a routine chemistry panel, and the albumin test requires a single spot urine test. Yet, in 2018, 61% of US adults aged 50-75 years had received a colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Compared with the high price and inconvenience of undergoing colonoscopy, Dr. Rosas has trouble believing that “we cannot get more than 40% of people [with diabetes] to pee in a cup.” 

But the biggest issue is that if people with risk factors don’t get screened before they develop symptoms of CKD, it is often too late to avoid dialysis or the need for transplantation. 

The early warning symptoms are few, according to Nisha Bansal, MD, a professor in the department of nephrology at the University of Washington in Seattle. “New hypertension is a really important early sign,” Dr. Bansal said. “We know kidney disease almost certainly causes hypertension, so I would definitely think about screening for kidney disease.” Other findings on exam are the appearance of new edema or signs of fluid retention in the hands or around the eyes, along with findings in the urine of albumin, protein, or blood. 

But most patients don’t have any symptoms in the early stages, and they can be nonspecific. “It is fatigue and some nausea,” Dr. Rosas said. “It’s only way at the end that you start vomiting, get itchy, or have hiccups.” Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that over one third of patients at high risk for kidney failure are unaware of their disease. According to Dr. Rosas, these are patients who often receive the diagnosis of CKD and start dialysis the same day. 
 

Why Not Screen Everyone?

For many conditions, like HIV or different types of cancer, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends broad screening of asymptomatic individuals so that early treatment can improve outcomes. 

But when the USPSTF considered the question in 2012 of whether adults should be screened for CKD regardless of symptoms, it found little evidence that early detection could change the course of their illness. At that time, the standard of care for treating early stages of CKD generally focused on treating the comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. 

But the equation has changed with the availability of new drugs to treat CKD, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs).

“I consider these blockbuster drugs,” Dr. Bansal said. “For the first time in decades, we’re showing that this class of medications, the SGLT2 inhibitors, substantially reduce risk of loss of kidney function.”

Expressed in the lumen of the proximal renal tubules, SGLT2 reabsorbs filtered glucose from the tubular lumen. Inhibition of SGLT2 promotes urinary glucose excretion and reduces sodium reabsorption, increasing delivery of sodium to the distal tubule. The first SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin, was approved in 2013 for use as an antihyperglycemic agent but subsequently was shown to have serendipitous benefits for the heart and kidneys. 

Clinical trials have documented reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as decreases in the risk for progression to end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. Updated international guidelines from 2022 recommend treating all patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD with an estimated GFR ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 with an SGLT2 inhibitor. 

But several trials of SGLT2 inhibitors also demonstrated benefits in reducing the risk for cardiovascular-related death or hospitalization for heart failure, even in patients without diabetes. Although initial approval from the US Food and Drug Administration was limited to patients with diabetes and heart failure, the agency has recently expanded its indications to include adults with CKD who do not have diabetes. 

Dr. Bansal said she was happy to see this widening of the indications, which makes more patients eligible to receive SGLT2 inhibitors. “I really think this early CKD group is a great group to consider for those medications,” she said. 

Dr. Bansal also pointed out that MRAs are another class of drugs with an interesting history. Earlier steroidal MRAs were found to have anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic properties, and in 1960 spironolactone was approved for use as a diuretic for the management of edema, primary aldosteronism, and hypertension. But even as their use in cardiology rose, MRAs had less utility for CKD, given adverse events such as hyperkalemia and hormonal effects like gynecomastia. 

But the latest generation of nonsteroidal MRAs (nsMRAs) has higher selectivity for the mineralocorticoid receptor than sex-steroid hormone receptors, reducing androgenic side effects and preventing elevated potassium. Finerenone, the only nsMRA approved in the United States, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) and CKD outcomes, including kidney failure, decrease in estimated GFR, or death from renal causes. 
 

EPIC Changes Coming?

In light of treatment advances that offer hope of preventing progression of CKD in patients identified early, both the National Kidney Foundation and the American Kidney Fund lobbied the USPSTF in 2022 to conduct a fresh review of recent data to evaluate the need for updated screening recommendations. 

The task force completed development of a research plan and collection of public comments in early 2023 and is now reviewing evidence before developing a draft recommendation. 

A team of health policy researchers from Stanford is hoping that some of their recently published work will attract the panel’s attention. The first study, published in 2022, evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor that has been shown to reduce mortality by 48% in CKD patients without diabetes. 

The Stanford team found that adding dapagliflozin to standard care for these patients improved life expectancy by 2 years and reduced the percentage of those who needed dialysis or kidney transplant from 17% to 11%. 

More recently, Marika Cusick, a doctoral candidate in health policy at the Stanford School of Medicine in Stanford, California, served as first author of an evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of screening asymptomatic adults. “We assessed screening for albuminuria in conjunction with conventional CKD therapy in addition to this new SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs,” she said. They projected how this might change CKD progression in US adults who are aged 35 or older compared with standard therapy alone. 

The findings were favorable. “A one-time screening would result in a reduction of 398,000 cases of kidney replacement therapy [defined as needing either dialysis or renal transplant] among 158 million US adults who are currently aged 35-75 years,” Ms. Cusick told this news organization.

In terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a one-time screening at age 55 years yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per QALY. Screening every 10 years between the ages of 35 and 75 years cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained. 

According to Doug Owens, MD, professor and chair of the department of health policy at Stanford School of Medicine, “There’s a societal decision about how much are we willing to pay for additional length and quality of life. And this fits within what is generally considered reasonable for the US.” 

For example, in the United States, screening for breast cancer among women aged 40-64 years costs $51,000 per QALY, whereas screening for lung cancer using USPSTF guidelines ranges from $72,639 to $156,774 per QALY. 

A former member of the USPSTF, Owens predicted that the current review process would take at least another year. Meanwhile, he and Ms. Cusick are hoping that their work influences the USPSTF to recommend screening asymptomatic adults. “Increasing the awareness of these drugs and their effectiveness is a crucial first step,” he said. 

Although adherence to current recommendations for screening of people at risk is poor, Dr. Rosas suggested that the USPSTF guidelines would be more influential in changing practice among primary care physicians than subspecialty guidelines would. 

“When you have a recommendation like that, they’re putting it in the electronic health record,” she said. By adding best practice alerts to their electronic health record systems, health systems can make it easier for primary care doctors to check all the boxes. 

In line with the AHA’s holistic approach towards managing cardiovascular illnesses, CKD, and metabolic disease, Dr. Bansal suggested an additional strategy: “I think we’re moving toward more interdisciplinary care models, where primary care doctors, nephrologist, cardiologists, and endocrinologists — all of us — should be working together in a collaborative care model, to help break down some of these barriers in terms of screening as well as implementation of these therapies.”

Dr. Bansal, Ms. Cusick, and Dr. Owens reported no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Rosas receives funding from AstraZeneca and Bayer for serving on advisory boards and clinical research funding, as well as funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for clinical trials. 
 

Dr. Thomas is a pediatrician and epidemiologist living in Portland, Oregon.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) nearly doubles future chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk, irrespective of subsequent diabetes and hypertension, a study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A nationwide, cohort study was based on data from the Danish Medical Birth Register and included 697,622 women who gave birth between 1997 and 2018.
• Of all study participants, 3.4% reported GDM in at least one pregnancy, and 12.8% of women with GDM received insulin, a proxy for a more severe metabolic dysfunction.
• The women were followed up for a median of 11.9 years.
• Researchers studied CKD and acute kidney disease as the outcomes of interest, the mediating effects of subsequent diabetes and hypertension on future CKD, and how GDM severity affected later risk for kidney disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM showed significantly higher CKD risk than those without GDM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21).
• Women who received insulin during pregnancy due to severe metabolic dysfunction but did not develop subsequent diabetes had a proportionally higher risk for CKD (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.39-3.97).
• Women with GDM who went on to develop diabetes or hypertension faced even higher risks for CKD, suggesting that preventing diabetes and hypertension after GDM may reduce the development of CKD.
• GDM did not affect the risk for acute kidney disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with severe metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy constitute a high-risk group regarding future CKD,” the authors wrote. “The significantly elevated CKD risk was observed from 2 years after pregnancy and beyond.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Maria Hornstrup Christensen, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, was published online on December 15 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

GDM may be underdiagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes may be misclassified as GDM. The proxies of GDM and insulin treatment may not have captured the increasing severity of metabolic dysfunction. The prevalence of insulin treatment was lower than expected, perhaps due to the practice of providing a patient’s first insulin pen without a prescription and perhaps not recording it in a patient’s health record.

DISCLOSURES:

This work received financial support from the University of Southern Denmark, the Region of Southern Denmark, and the Danish Diabetes Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) nearly doubles future chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk, irrespective of subsequent diabetes and hypertension, a study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A nationwide, cohort study was based on data from the Danish Medical Birth Register and included 697,622 women who gave birth between 1997 and 2018.
• Of all study participants, 3.4% reported GDM in at least one pregnancy, and 12.8% of women with GDM received insulin, a proxy for a more severe metabolic dysfunction.
• The women were followed up for a median of 11.9 years.
• Researchers studied CKD and acute kidney disease as the outcomes of interest, the mediating effects of subsequent diabetes and hypertension on future CKD, and how GDM severity affected later risk for kidney disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM showed significantly higher CKD risk than those without GDM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21).
• Women who received insulin during pregnancy due to severe metabolic dysfunction but did not develop subsequent diabetes had a proportionally higher risk for CKD (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.39-3.97).
• Women with GDM who went on to develop diabetes or hypertension faced even higher risks for CKD, suggesting that preventing diabetes and hypertension after GDM may reduce the development of CKD.
• GDM did not affect the risk for acute kidney disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with severe metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy constitute a high-risk group regarding future CKD,” the authors wrote. “The significantly elevated CKD risk was observed from 2 years after pregnancy and beyond.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Maria Hornstrup Christensen, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, was published online on December 15 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

GDM may be underdiagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes may be misclassified as GDM. The proxies of GDM and insulin treatment may not have captured the increasing severity of metabolic dysfunction. The prevalence of insulin treatment was lower than expected, perhaps due to the practice of providing a patient’s first insulin pen without a prescription and perhaps not recording it in a patient’s health record.

DISCLOSURES:

This work received financial support from the University of Southern Denmark, the Region of Southern Denmark, and the Danish Diabetes Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) nearly doubles future chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk, irrespective of subsequent diabetes and hypertension, a study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A nationwide, cohort study was based on data from the Danish Medical Birth Register and included 697,622 women who gave birth between 1997 and 2018.
• Of all study participants, 3.4% reported GDM in at least one pregnancy, and 12.8% of women with GDM received insulin, a proxy for a more severe metabolic dysfunction.
• The women were followed up for a median of 11.9 years.
• Researchers studied CKD and acute kidney disease as the outcomes of interest, the mediating effects of subsequent diabetes and hypertension on future CKD, and how GDM severity affected later risk for kidney disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM showed significantly higher CKD risk than those without GDM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21).
• Women who received insulin during pregnancy due to severe metabolic dysfunction but did not develop subsequent diabetes had a proportionally higher risk for CKD (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.39-3.97).
• Women with GDM who went on to develop diabetes or hypertension faced even higher risks for CKD, suggesting that preventing diabetes and hypertension after GDM may reduce the development of CKD.
• GDM did not affect the risk for acute kidney disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with severe metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy constitute a high-risk group regarding future CKD,” the authors wrote. “The significantly elevated CKD risk was observed from 2 years after pregnancy and beyond.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Maria Hornstrup Christensen, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, was published online on December 15 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

GDM may be underdiagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes may be misclassified as GDM. The proxies of GDM and insulin treatment may not have captured the increasing severity of metabolic dysfunction. The prevalence of insulin treatment was lower than expected, perhaps due to the practice of providing a patient’s first insulin pen without a prescription and perhaps not recording it in a patient’s health record.

DISCLOSURES:

This work received financial support from the University of Southern Denmark, the Region of Southern Denmark, and the Danish Diabetes Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains challenged by overall poor trial quality, clinical practice guidelines that offer differing advice, and a limited ability to predict individual risk and treatment response, but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.

Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.

The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.  

“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.

The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.

The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.

The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.

The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
 

The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics

The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.

Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.

In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.

In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”

A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.

“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”

Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.

Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.

Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
 

The Challenge of Heterogeneity

In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.

Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.

A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.

Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”

Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.

There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)

“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”

Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.

The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
 

Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity

Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.

She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.

A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”

Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.

“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”

The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.

In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.

Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains challenged by overall poor trial quality, clinical practice guidelines that offer differing advice, and a limited ability to predict individual risk and treatment response, but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.

Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.

The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.  

“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.

The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.

The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.

The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.

The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
 

The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics

The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.

Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.

In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.

In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”

A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.

“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”

Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.

Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.

Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
 

The Challenge of Heterogeneity

In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.

Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.

A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.

Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”

Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.

There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)

“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”

Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.

The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
 

Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity

Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.

She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.

A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”

Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.

“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”

The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.

In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.

Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — Pharmacologic treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains challenged by overall poor trial quality, clinical practice guidelines that offer differing advice, and a limited ability to predict individual risk and treatment response, but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.

Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.

The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.  

“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.

The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.

The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.

The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.

The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
 

The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics

The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.

Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.

In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.

In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”

A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.

“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”

Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.

Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.

Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
 

The Challenge of Heterogeneity

In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.

Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.

A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.

Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”

Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.

There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)

“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”

Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.

The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
 

Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity

Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.

She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.

A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”

Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.

“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”

The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.

In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.

Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”