Diabetes

“Night owls” have an increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes and are more likely to smoke more, exercise less, and have poor sleep habits, compared with their “early bird” counterparts, according to a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The work focused on participants’ self-assessed chronotype – an individuals’ circadian preference, or natural preference to sleep and wake up earlier or later, commonly known as being an early bird or a night owl.

Analyzing the self-reported lifestyle behaviors and sleeping habits of more than 60,000 middle-aged female nurses, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, found that those with a preference for waking up later had a 72% higher risk for diabetes and were 54% more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, compared with participants who tended to wake up earlier.

After adjustment for six lifestyle factors – diet, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, and sleep duration – the association between diabetes risk and evening chronotype weakened to a 19% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In a subgroup analysis, this association was stronger among women who either had had no night shifts over the previous 2 years or had worked night shifts for less than 10 years in their careers. For nurses who had worked night shifts recently, the study found no association between evening chronotype and diabetes risk.

The participants, drawn from the Nurses’ Health Study II, were between 45 and 62 years age, with no history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes. Researchers followed the group from 2009 until 2017.
 

Is there a mismatch between natural circadian rhythm and work schedule?

The authors, led by Sina Kianersi, DVM, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest that their results may be linked to a mismatch between a person’s circadian rhythm and their physical and social environment – for example, if someone lives on a schedule opposite to their circadian preference.

In one 2015 study, female nurses who had worked daytime shifts for more than 10 years but had an evening chronotype had the highest diabetes risk, compared with early chronotypes (51% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes).

In a 2022 study, an evening chronotype was associated with a 30% elevated risk for type 2 diabetes. The authors speculated that circadian misalignment could be to blame – for example, being a night owl but working early morning – which can disrupt glycemic and lipid metabolism.

Previous studies have found that shorter or irregular sleep habits are associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Other studies have also found that people with an evening chronotype are more likely than early birds to have unhealthy eating habits, have lower levels of physical activity, and smoke and drink.

This new study did not find that an evening chronotype was associated with unhealthy drinking, which the authors defined as having one or more drinks per day.

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston caution that the statistical design of the study limits its ability to establish causation.

“Chronotype could change later, which might correlate with lifestyle changes,” write Kehuan Lin, MS, Mingyang Song, MBBS, and Edward Giovannucci, MD. “Experimental trials are required to determine whether chronotype is a marker of unhealthy lifestyle or an independent determinant.”

They also suggest that psychological factors and the type of work being performed by the participants could be potential confounders.

The authors of the study note that their findings might not be generalizable to groups other than middle-aged White female nurses. The study population also had a relatively high level of education and were socioeconomically advantaged.

Self-reporting chronotypes with a single question could also result in misclassification and measurement error, the authors acknowledge.

The findings underscore the value of assessing an individuals’ chronotype for scheduling shift work – for example, assigning night owls to night shifts may improve their metabolic health and sleeping habits, according to the authors of the study.

“Given the importance of lifestyle modification in diabetes prevention, future research is warranted to investigate whether improving lifestyle behaviors could effectively reduce diabetes risk in persons with an evening chronotype,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the European Research Council.

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

“Night owls” have an increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes and are more likely to smoke more, exercise less, and have poor sleep habits, compared with their “early bird” counterparts, according to a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The work focused on participants’ self-assessed chronotype – an individuals’ circadian preference, or natural preference to sleep and wake up earlier or later, commonly known as being an early bird or a night owl.

Analyzing the self-reported lifestyle behaviors and sleeping habits of more than 60,000 middle-aged female nurses, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, found that those with a preference for waking up later had a 72% higher risk for diabetes and were 54% more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, compared with participants who tended to wake up earlier.

After adjustment for six lifestyle factors – diet, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, and sleep duration – the association between diabetes risk and evening chronotype weakened to a 19% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In a subgroup analysis, this association was stronger among women who either had had no night shifts over the previous 2 years or had worked night shifts for less than 10 years in their careers. For nurses who had worked night shifts recently, the study found no association between evening chronotype and diabetes risk.

The participants, drawn from the Nurses’ Health Study II, were between 45 and 62 years age, with no history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes. Researchers followed the group from 2009 until 2017.
 

Is there a mismatch between natural circadian rhythm and work schedule?

The authors, led by Sina Kianersi, DVM, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest that their results may be linked to a mismatch between a person’s circadian rhythm and their physical and social environment – for example, if someone lives on a schedule opposite to their circadian preference.

In one 2015 study, female nurses who had worked daytime shifts for more than 10 years but had an evening chronotype had the highest diabetes risk, compared with early chronotypes (51% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes).

In a 2022 study, an evening chronotype was associated with a 30% elevated risk for type 2 diabetes. The authors speculated that circadian misalignment could be to blame – for example, being a night owl but working early morning – which can disrupt glycemic and lipid metabolism.

Previous studies have found that shorter or irregular sleep habits are associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Other studies have also found that people with an evening chronotype are more likely than early birds to have unhealthy eating habits, have lower levels of physical activity, and smoke and drink.

This new study did not find that an evening chronotype was associated with unhealthy drinking, which the authors defined as having one or more drinks per day.

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston caution that the statistical design of the study limits its ability to establish causation.

“Chronotype could change later, which might correlate with lifestyle changes,” write Kehuan Lin, MS, Mingyang Song, MBBS, and Edward Giovannucci, MD. “Experimental trials are required to determine whether chronotype is a marker of unhealthy lifestyle or an independent determinant.”

They also suggest that psychological factors and the type of work being performed by the participants could be potential confounders.

The authors of the study note that their findings might not be generalizable to groups other than middle-aged White female nurses. The study population also had a relatively high level of education and were socioeconomically advantaged.

Self-reporting chronotypes with a single question could also result in misclassification and measurement error, the authors acknowledge.

The findings underscore the value of assessing an individuals’ chronotype for scheduling shift work – for example, assigning night owls to night shifts may improve their metabolic health and sleeping habits, according to the authors of the study.

“Given the importance of lifestyle modification in diabetes prevention, future research is warranted to investigate whether improving lifestyle behaviors could effectively reduce diabetes risk in persons with an evening chronotype,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the European Research Council.

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

“Night owls” have an increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes and are more likely to smoke more, exercise less, and have poor sleep habits, compared with their “early bird” counterparts, according to a new study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The work focused on participants’ self-assessed chronotype – an individuals’ circadian preference, or natural preference to sleep and wake up earlier or later, commonly known as being an early bird or a night owl.

Analyzing the self-reported lifestyle behaviors and sleeping habits of more than 60,000 middle-aged female nurses, researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, found that those with a preference for waking up later had a 72% higher risk for diabetes and were 54% more likely to have unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, compared with participants who tended to wake up earlier.

After adjustment for six lifestyle factors – diet, alcohol use, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, smoking status, and sleep duration – the association between diabetes risk and evening chronotype weakened to a 19% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

In a subgroup analysis, this association was stronger among women who either had had no night shifts over the previous 2 years or had worked night shifts for less than 10 years in their careers. For nurses who had worked night shifts recently, the study found no association between evening chronotype and diabetes risk.

The participants, drawn from the Nurses’ Health Study II, were between 45 and 62 years age, with no history of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes. Researchers followed the group from 2009 until 2017.
 

Is there a mismatch between natural circadian rhythm and work schedule?

The authors, led by Sina Kianersi, DVM, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest that their results may be linked to a mismatch between a person’s circadian rhythm and their physical and social environment – for example, if someone lives on a schedule opposite to their circadian preference.

In one 2015 study, female nurses who had worked daytime shifts for more than 10 years but had an evening chronotype had the highest diabetes risk, compared with early chronotypes (51% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes).

In a 2022 study, an evening chronotype was associated with a 30% elevated risk for type 2 diabetes. The authors speculated that circadian misalignment could be to blame – for example, being a night owl but working early morning – which can disrupt glycemic and lipid metabolism.

Previous studies have found that shorter or irregular sleep habits are associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Other studies have also found that people with an evening chronotype are more likely than early birds to have unhealthy eating habits, have lower levels of physical activity, and smoke and drink.

This new study did not find that an evening chronotype was associated with unhealthy drinking, which the authors defined as having one or more drinks per day.

In an accompanying editorial, two physicians from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston caution that the statistical design of the study limits its ability to establish causation.

“Chronotype could change later, which might correlate with lifestyle changes,” write Kehuan Lin, MS, Mingyang Song, MBBS, and Edward Giovannucci, MD. “Experimental trials are required to determine whether chronotype is a marker of unhealthy lifestyle or an independent determinant.”

They also suggest that psychological factors and the type of work being performed by the participants could be potential confounders.

The authors of the study note that their findings might not be generalizable to groups other than middle-aged White female nurses. The study population also had a relatively high level of education and were socioeconomically advantaged.

Self-reporting chronotypes with a single question could also result in misclassification and measurement error, the authors acknowledge.

The findings underscore the value of assessing an individuals’ chronotype for scheduling shift work – for example, assigning night owls to night shifts may improve their metabolic health and sleeping habits, according to the authors of the study.

“Given the importance of lifestyle modification in diabetes prevention, future research is warranted to investigate whether improving lifestyle behaviors could effectively reduce diabetes risk in persons with an evening chronotype,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the European Research Council.

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 51-year-old woman with a history of elevated cholesterol and a body mass index (BMI) of 31 presents to your clinic for a scheduled follow-up visit to review recent blood test results. Her A1C was elevated at 5.9%. She wants to know if she should start medication now.

Prediabetes is a high-risk state that ­confers increased risk for type 2 ­diabetes (T2D). It is identified by impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG], 100-125 mg/dL), impaired glucose tolerance (2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, 140-199 mg/dL), or an elevated A1C (between 5.7% and 6.4%).²

An estimated 96 million ­Americans—38% of the US adult population—have prediabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.³ Family physicians frequently encounter this condition when screening for T2D in asymptomatic adults (ages 35 to 70 years) with overweight or obesity, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (grade “B”).⁴

To treat, or not? Studies have shown that interventions such as lifestyle modification and use of metformin by patients with prediabetes can decrease their risk for T2D.^5,6 In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study, progression from prediabetes to T2D was reduced to 14% with lifestyle modification and 22% with metformin use, vs 29% with placebo.⁷

However, there is disagreement about whether to treat prediabetes, particularly with medication. Some argue that metformin is a safe, effective, and cost-saving treatment to prevent T2D and its associated health consequences.⁸ The current American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines suggest that metformin be considered in certain patients with prediabetes and high-risk factors, especially younger age, obesity or hyperglycemia, or a history of gestational diabetes.⁹ However, only an estimated 1% to 4% of adults with prediabetes are prescribed metformin.¹⁰

Others argue that treating a preclinical condition is not a patient-centered approach, especially since not all patients with prediabetes progress to T2D and the risk for development or progression of retinopathy and microalbuminuria is extremely low if A1C levels remain < 7.0%.¹¹ By this standard, pharmacologic treatment should be initiated only if, or when, a patient develops T2D, with a focus on intensive lifestyle intervention for high-risk patients in the interim.¹¹

Given the conflicting viewpoints, ongoing long-term studies on T2D prevention will help guide treatment decisions for patients with prediabetes. The study by Lee et al¹ was the first to evaluate the effect of metformin or intensive lifestyle modification on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in patients at high risk for T2D.

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

 

 

STUDY SUMMARY

No mortality benefit from metformin or lifestyle modification

This secondary analysis evaluated mortality outcomes for patients at risk for T2D who were part of the DPP trial and then were ­followed long term in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).¹ The initial DPP trial included 3234 adult patients at high risk for T2D (defined as having a BMI ≥ 24; an FPG of 95-125 mg/dL; and a 2-hour glucose level of 140-199 mg/dL). Participants were randomized into groups receiving either intensive lifestyle intervention (which focused on achieving ≥ 150 min/wk of exercise and ≥ 7% body weight loss), metformin 850 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily; the latter 2 groups also received standard exercise and diet recommendations. Mean age was 51 years, mean BMI was 34, and 68% of participants were female.

Both the metformin and lifestyle intervention groups experienced decreases in weight and cardiovascular risk factors but not in mortality.

At the conclusion of the initial 5-year trial, treatment was unmasked and 86% of the patients continued to be followed for long-term outcomes. Patients in the lifestyle group were offered semiannual lifestyle reinforcement, while the metformin group continued to receive the twice-daily 850-mg dose unless a contraindication developed. If FPG levels increased to ≥ 140 mg/dL in the DPP study, or A1C increased to ≥ 7% in the DPPOS, study metformin was discontinued and management of the patient’s diabetes was transferred to their health care provider. By the end of the DPPOS, 53% of patients in the lifestyle group and 55% in the metformin group had progressed to T2D, compared with 60% in the placebo group (P = 0.003).

After a median 21-year follow-up interval, the investigators collected data on cause of death for patients and evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and cause-specific mortality. In total, 14% of the participants died, with no statistically significant difference in rates between the 3 groups. Cancer (37%) was the leading cause of death in all groups, followed by cardiovascular disease (CVD; 29%).

Compared with the placebo group, patients taking metformin did not have a decreased rate of overall mortality (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.25), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.52), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70-1.66). Similarly, compared with the placebo group, lifestyle intervention did not decrease overall mortality (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.74-1.55), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.81). Results were similar when adjusted for other factors, including out-of-study metformin use, T2D status and duration, BMI change, and other cardiovascular risk factors.

WHAT’S NEW

Long-term data clarifylimits to interventions’ utility

This study looked at long-term follow-up data on mortality outcomes for patients with prediabetes treated with metformin or lifestyle intervention. Although these interventions did support weight loss, reduce the incidence of T2D, and lower cardiovascular risk factors (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia), the comorbidity benefits did not affect risk for all-cause or cause-specific mortality, which were similar between the treatment and placebo groups.

Continue to: CAVEATS

 

 

CAVEATS

Exclusion criteria, residual confounding may limit the findings

Patients with significant cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded, so results may not apply to patients with these comorbidities. Additionally, there was a high amount of “drop-in” use of metformin prescribed by physicians once patients developed T2D, which may not have been controlled for completely. And while the intensive lifestyle intervention group had specific goals, the metformin and placebo groups also were encouraged to follow standard diet and lifestyle recommendations—and during a bridge period, all participants were offered a modified group lifestyle intervention. However, multivariable adjustment did not change the study conclusion.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Physicians may be unwilling to change their current prescribing habits

Physicians may not be willing to change their practice of prescribing metformin in prediabetes based on a singular study (with residual confounding) that showed no long-term mortality differences between the study groups. However, there may be long-term morbidity differences of interest to patients that were not specifically evaluated in this study—such as quality-of-life benefits from weight loss that may outweigh the risks (eg, gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain) of metformin for some patients. Therefore, a discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment for prediabetes should be had with patients at high risk who would prefer a pharmacologic intervention.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 51-year-old woman with a history of elevated cholesterol and a body mass index (BMI) of 31 presents to your clinic for a scheduled follow-up visit to review recent blood test results. Her A1C was elevated at 5.9%. She wants to know if she should start medication now.

Prediabetes is a high-risk state that ­confers increased risk for type 2 ­diabetes (T2D). It is identified by impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG], 100-125 mg/dL), impaired glucose tolerance (2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, 140-199 mg/dL), or an elevated A1C (between 5.7% and 6.4%).²

An estimated 96 million ­Americans—38% of the US adult population—have prediabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.³ Family physicians frequently encounter this condition when screening for T2D in asymptomatic adults (ages 35 to 70 years) with overweight or obesity, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (grade “B”).⁴

To treat, or not? Studies have shown that interventions such as lifestyle modification and use of metformin by patients with prediabetes can decrease their risk for T2D.^5,6 In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study, progression from prediabetes to T2D was reduced to 14% with lifestyle modification and 22% with metformin use, vs 29% with placebo.⁷

However, there is disagreement about whether to treat prediabetes, particularly with medication. Some argue that metformin is a safe, effective, and cost-saving treatment to prevent T2D and its associated health consequences.⁸ The current American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines suggest that metformin be considered in certain patients with prediabetes and high-risk factors, especially younger age, obesity or hyperglycemia, or a history of gestational diabetes.⁹ However, only an estimated 1% to 4% of adults with prediabetes are prescribed metformin.¹⁰

Others argue that treating a preclinical condition is not a patient-centered approach, especially since not all patients with prediabetes progress to T2D and the risk for development or progression of retinopathy and microalbuminuria is extremely low if A1C levels remain < 7.0%.¹¹ By this standard, pharmacologic treatment should be initiated only if, or when, a patient develops T2D, with a focus on intensive lifestyle intervention for high-risk patients in the interim.¹¹

Given the conflicting viewpoints, ongoing long-term studies on T2D prevention will help guide treatment decisions for patients with prediabetes. The study by Lee et al¹ was the first to evaluate the effect of metformin or intensive lifestyle modification on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in patients at high risk for T2D.

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

 

 

STUDY SUMMARY

No mortality benefit from metformin or lifestyle modification

This secondary analysis evaluated mortality outcomes for patients at risk for T2D who were part of the DPP trial and then were ­followed long term in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).¹ The initial DPP trial included 3234 adult patients at high risk for T2D (defined as having a BMI ≥ 24; an FPG of 95-125 mg/dL; and a 2-hour glucose level of 140-199 mg/dL). Participants were randomized into groups receiving either intensive lifestyle intervention (which focused on achieving ≥ 150 min/wk of exercise and ≥ 7% body weight loss), metformin 850 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily; the latter 2 groups also received standard exercise and diet recommendations. Mean age was 51 years, mean BMI was 34, and 68% of participants were female.

Both the metformin and lifestyle intervention groups experienced decreases in weight and cardiovascular risk factors but not in mortality.

At the conclusion of the initial 5-year trial, treatment was unmasked and 86% of the patients continued to be followed for long-term outcomes. Patients in the lifestyle group were offered semiannual lifestyle reinforcement, while the metformin group continued to receive the twice-daily 850-mg dose unless a contraindication developed. If FPG levels increased to ≥ 140 mg/dL in the DPP study, or A1C increased to ≥ 7% in the DPPOS, study metformin was discontinued and management of the patient’s diabetes was transferred to their health care provider. By the end of the DPPOS, 53% of patients in the lifestyle group and 55% in the metformin group had progressed to T2D, compared with 60% in the placebo group (P = 0.003).

After a median 21-year follow-up interval, the investigators collected data on cause of death for patients and evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and cause-specific mortality. In total, 14% of the participants died, with no statistically significant difference in rates between the 3 groups. Cancer (37%) was the leading cause of death in all groups, followed by cardiovascular disease (CVD; 29%).

Compared with the placebo group, patients taking metformin did not have a decreased rate of overall mortality (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.25), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.52), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70-1.66). Similarly, compared with the placebo group, lifestyle intervention did not decrease overall mortality (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.74-1.55), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.81). Results were similar when adjusted for other factors, including out-of-study metformin use, T2D status and duration, BMI change, and other cardiovascular risk factors.

WHAT’S NEW

Long-term data clarifylimits to interventions’ utility

This study looked at long-term follow-up data on mortality outcomes for patients with prediabetes treated with metformin or lifestyle intervention. Although these interventions did support weight loss, reduce the incidence of T2D, and lower cardiovascular risk factors (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia), the comorbidity benefits did not affect risk for all-cause or cause-specific mortality, which were similar between the treatment and placebo groups.

Continue to: CAVEATS

 

 

CAVEATS

Exclusion criteria, residual confounding may limit the findings

Patients with significant cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded, so results may not apply to patients with these comorbidities. Additionally, there was a high amount of “drop-in” use of metformin prescribed by physicians once patients developed T2D, which may not have been controlled for completely. And while the intensive lifestyle intervention group had specific goals, the metformin and placebo groups also were encouraged to follow standard diet and lifestyle recommendations—and during a bridge period, all participants were offered a modified group lifestyle intervention. However, multivariable adjustment did not change the study conclusion.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Physicians may be unwilling to change their current prescribing habits

Physicians may not be willing to change their practice of prescribing metformin in prediabetes based on a singular study (with residual confounding) that showed no long-term mortality differences between the study groups. However, there may be long-term morbidity differences of interest to patients that were not specifically evaluated in this study—such as quality-of-life benefits from weight loss that may outweigh the risks (eg, gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain) of metformin for some patients. Therefore, a discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment for prediabetes should be had with patients at high risk who would prefer a pharmacologic intervention.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 51-year-old woman with a history of elevated cholesterol and a body mass index (BMI) of 31 presents to your clinic for a scheduled follow-up visit to review recent blood test results. Her A1C was elevated at 5.9%. She wants to know if she should start medication now.

Prediabetes is a high-risk state that ­confers increased risk for type 2 ­diabetes (T2D). It is identified by impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG], 100-125 mg/dL), impaired glucose tolerance (2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, 140-199 mg/dL), or an elevated A1C (between 5.7% and 6.4%).²

An estimated 96 million ­Americans—38% of the US adult population—have prediabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.³ Family physicians frequently encounter this condition when screening for T2D in asymptomatic adults (ages 35 to 70 years) with overweight or obesity, as recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (grade “B”).⁴

To treat, or not? Studies have shown that interventions such as lifestyle modification and use of metformin by patients with prediabetes can decrease their risk for T2D.^5,6 In the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study, progression from prediabetes to T2D was reduced to 14% with lifestyle modification and 22% with metformin use, vs 29% with placebo.⁷

However, there is disagreement about whether to treat prediabetes, particularly with medication. Some argue that metformin is a safe, effective, and cost-saving treatment to prevent T2D and its associated health consequences.⁸ The current American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines suggest that metformin be considered in certain patients with prediabetes and high-risk factors, especially younger age, obesity or hyperglycemia, or a history of gestational diabetes.⁹ However, only an estimated 1% to 4% of adults with prediabetes are prescribed metformin.¹⁰

Others argue that treating a preclinical condition is not a patient-centered approach, especially since not all patients with prediabetes progress to T2D and the risk for development or progression of retinopathy and microalbuminuria is extremely low if A1C levels remain < 7.0%.¹¹ By this standard, pharmacologic treatment should be initiated only if, or when, a patient develops T2D, with a focus on intensive lifestyle intervention for high-risk patients in the interim.¹¹

Given the conflicting viewpoints, ongoing long-term studies on T2D prevention will help guide treatment decisions for patients with prediabetes. The study by Lee et al¹ was the first to evaluate the effect of metformin or intensive lifestyle modification on all-cause and cause-specific mortality in patients at high risk for T2D.

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

 

 

STUDY SUMMARY

No mortality benefit from metformin or lifestyle modification

This secondary analysis evaluated mortality outcomes for patients at risk for T2D who were part of the DPP trial and then were ­followed long term in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS).¹ The initial DPP trial included 3234 adult patients at high risk for T2D (defined as having a BMI ≥ 24; an FPG of 95-125 mg/dL; and a 2-hour glucose level of 140-199 mg/dL). Participants were randomized into groups receiving either intensive lifestyle intervention (which focused on achieving ≥ 150 min/wk of exercise and ≥ 7% body weight loss), metformin 850 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily; the latter 2 groups also received standard exercise and diet recommendations. Mean age was 51 years, mean BMI was 34, and 68% of participants were female.

Both the metformin and lifestyle intervention groups experienced decreases in weight and cardiovascular risk factors but not in mortality.

At the conclusion of the initial 5-year trial, treatment was unmasked and 86% of the patients continued to be followed for long-term outcomes. Patients in the lifestyle group were offered semiannual lifestyle reinforcement, while the metformin group continued to receive the twice-daily 850-mg dose unless a contraindication developed. If FPG levels increased to ≥ 140 mg/dL in the DPP study, or A1C increased to ≥ 7% in the DPPOS, study metformin was discontinued and management of the patient’s diabetes was transferred to their health care provider. By the end of the DPPOS, 53% of patients in the lifestyle group and 55% in the metformin group had progressed to T2D, compared with 60% in the placebo group (P = 0.003).

After a median 21-year follow-up interval, the investigators collected data on cause of death for patients and evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall and cause-specific mortality. In total, 14% of the participants died, with no statistically significant difference in rates between the 3 groups. Cancer (37%) was the leading cause of death in all groups, followed by cardiovascular disease (CVD; 29%).

Compared with the placebo group, patients taking metformin did not have a decreased rate of overall mortality (HR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79-1.25), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.52), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.70-1.66). Similarly, compared with the placebo group, lifestyle intervention did not decrease overall mortality (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81-1.28), mortality from cancer (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.74-1.55), or mortality due to CVD (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 0.77-1.81). Results were similar when adjusted for other factors, including out-of-study metformin use, T2D status and duration, BMI change, and other cardiovascular risk factors.

WHAT’S NEW

Long-term data clarifylimits to interventions’ utility

This study looked at long-term follow-up data on mortality outcomes for patients with prediabetes treated with metformin or lifestyle intervention. Although these interventions did support weight loss, reduce the incidence of T2D, and lower cardiovascular risk factors (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia), the comorbidity benefits did not affect risk for all-cause or cause-specific mortality, which were similar between the treatment and placebo groups.

Continue to: CAVEATS

 

 

CAVEATS

Exclusion criteria, residual confounding may limit the findings

Patients with significant cardiovascular or renal disease were excluded, so results may not apply to patients with these comorbidities. Additionally, there was a high amount of “drop-in” use of metformin prescribed by physicians once patients developed T2D, which may not have been controlled for completely. And while the intensive lifestyle intervention group had specific goals, the metformin and placebo groups also were encouraged to follow standard diet and lifestyle recommendations—and during a bridge period, all participants were offered a modified group lifestyle intervention. However, multivariable adjustment did not change the study conclusion.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Physicians may be unwilling to change their current prescribing habits

Physicians may not be willing to change their practice of prescribing metformin in prediabetes based on a singular study (with residual confounding) that showed no long-term mortality differences between the study groups. However, there may be long-term morbidity differences of interest to patients that were not specifically evaluated in this study—such as quality-of-life benefits from weight loss that may outweigh the risks (eg, gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain) of metformin for some patients. Therefore, a discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment for prediabetes should be had with patients at high risk who would prefer a pharmacologic intervention.

Evidence summary

Naltrexone is comparable to amitriptyline for diabetic neuropathy pain

A 2021 randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, crossover clinical trial conducted in India examined the efficacy of low-dose naltrexone vs standard-of-care amitriptyline in patients (N = 67) with painful diabetic neuropathy. Participants were adults (ages 18 to 75 years) with painful diabetic neuropathy who had been on a stable dose of nonopioid pain medication for at least 1 month.¹

Patients were randomly assigned to start receiving naltrexone 2 mg (n = 33) or amitriptyline 10 mg (n = 34). They received their starting medication for 6 weeks (with follow-up every 2 weeks), then completed a 2-week washout period, and then switched to the other study medication for 6 weeks (same follow-up schedule). If patients reported < 20% pain reduction on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100 scoring system with 0 = no pain and 100 = worst pain) at a follow-up visit, their medication dose was titrated up, to a maximum of 4 mg of naltrexone or 25 to 50 mg of amitriptyline.¹

The primary outcome of interest was the mean change in VAS pain score following 6 weeks of treatment. There was no statistically different change from baseline VAS pain score between the amitriptyline and nal­trexone groups (mean difference [MD] = 1.6; 95% CI, –0.9 to 4.2; P = 0.21). These findings were consistent across the secondary endpoints (Likert 5-point pain scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire scores). There was no statistically significant difference in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (13 in the naltrexone group vs 11 in the amitriptyline group; P = .81), no reports of decreased sleep quality in either group, and no significant difference in Patients’ Global Impression of Change scores at 6-week evaluation.¹

The naltrexone cohort experienced 8 adverse events (most commonly, mild diarrhea), while the amitriptyline cohort experienced 52 adverse events (most commonly, somnolence) (P < .001). The limitations of the study include the lack of a placebo arm and a relatively small sample size.¹

Greater reduction in pain scores with naltrexone

A 2022 retrospective cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of naltrexone for patients treated at a single outpatient integrative pain management practice in Alaska between 2014 and 2019. The exposure group (n = 36) included patients who had completed at least a 2-month continuous regimen of oral naltrexone 4.5 mg. Controls (n = 42) were selected from the remaining practice population receiving standard care and were primarily matched by diagnosis code, followed by gender, then age +/– 5 years. Patients were divided into subgroups for inflammatory and neuropathic pain.²

The primary outcome measured was the mean change in VAS score or numeric rating score (NRS; both used a 1-10 rating system), which was assessed during a patient’s appointment from initiation of treatment to the most recent visit or at the termination of therapy (intervention interquartile range, 12-14 months). There was no statistically significant difference in VAS/NRS between the low-dose naltrexone and control groups at baseline (6.09 vs 6.38; P = .454). The low-dose naltrexone group experienced a greater reduction in VAS/NRS pain scores compared to the control group (–37.8% vs –4.3%; P < .001).²

Compared with control patients in each group, patients in the inflammatory pain subgroup and the neuropathic pain subgroup who received low-dose naltrexone reported reductions in pain scores of 32% (P < .001) and 44% (P = .048), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mean change in VAS/NRS scores between the inflammatory and neuropathic subgroups (P = .763). A multivariate linear regression analysis did not identify significant variables other than low-dose naltrexone that correlated with pain improvement. The number needed to treat to observe a ≥ 50% reduction in pain scores was 3.2.²

Continue to: Limitations for this study...

Limitations for this study include its small sample size and open-label design.²

Low-dose naltrexone is effective for fibromyalgia pain

A 2020 single-blind prospective dose-­response study utilized the up-and-down method to identify effective naltrexone dose for patients in a Danish university hospital pain clinic. Patients were White women ages 18 to 60 years (N = 25) who had a diagnosis of fibromyalgia unresponsive to traditional pharmacologic treatment. All patients received treatment with low-dose naltrexone (ranging from 0.75 mg to 6.0 mg) but were blinded to dose.³

Studies show that low-dose naltrexone has some effectiveness in a variety of pain conditions—including diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia—with few adverse effects.

Patients were evaluated for improvement in fibromyalgia symptoms using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale—which ranges from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse), with 4 being “no change”—at baseline and after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment with low-dose naltrexone. A patient was considered a responder if they scored 1 to 3 on the follow-up PGI-I scale or if they experienced a > 30% pain reduction on the VAS. If a patient did not respond to their dose, the next patient began treatment at a dose 0.75 mg higher than the previous patient’s ending dose. If a patient did respond to low-dose naltrexone treatment, the next patient’s starting dose was 0.75 mg less than the previous patient’s. Eleven of 25 patients were considered responders.³

The primary outcomes were effective dose for 50% of fibromyalgia patients (3.88 mg; 95% CI, 3.39-4.35) and effective dose for 95% of fibromyalgia patients (5.4 mg; 95% CI, 4.66-6.13). Secondary outcomes were fibromyalgia symptoms as evaluated on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised. Five of the 11 responders reported a > 30% improvement in tenderness and 8 of the 11 responders reported a > 30% decrease in waking unrefreshed.³

Limitations of the study include the short time period of treatment before response was assessed and the decision to use low test ­doses, which may have hindered detection of effective doses > 6 mg in fibromyalgia.³

Editor’s takeaway

Low-dose naltrexone, a less-often-used form of pain management, is a welcome option. Studies show some effectiveness in a variety of pain conditions with few adverse effects. The small number of studies, the small sample sizes, and the limited follow-up duration should encourage more investigation into how to best use this intervention.

Evidence summary

Naltrexone is comparable to amitriptyline for diabetic neuropathy pain

A 2021 randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, crossover clinical trial conducted in India examined the efficacy of low-dose naltrexone vs standard-of-care amitriptyline in patients (N = 67) with painful diabetic neuropathy. Participants were adults (ages 18 to 75 years) with painful diabetic neuropathy who had been on a stable dose of nonopioid pain medication for at least 1 month.¹

Patients were randomly assigned to start receiving naltrexone 2 mg (n = 33) or amitriptyline 10 mg (n = 34). They received their starting medication for 6 weeks (with follow-up every 2 weeks), then completed a 2-week washout period, and then switched to the other study medication for 6 weeks (same follow-up schedule). If patients reported < 20% pain reduction on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100 scoring system with 0 = no pain and 100 = worst pain) at a follow-up visit, their medication dose was titrated up, to a maximum of 4 mg of naltrexone or 25 to 50 mg of amitriptyline.¹

The primary outcome of interest was the mean change in VAS pain score following 6 weeks of treatment. There was no statistically different change from baseline VAS pain score between the amitriptyline and nal­trexone groups (mean difference [MD] = 1.6; 95% CI, –0.9 to 4.2; P = 0.21). These findings were consistent across the secondary endpoints (Likert 5-point pain scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire scores). There was no statistically significant difference in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (13 in the naltrexone group vs 11 in the amitriptyline group; P = .81), no reports of decreased sleep quality in either group, and no significant difference in Patients’ Global Impression of Change scores at 6-week evaluation.¹

The naltrexone cohort experienced 8 adverse events (most commonly, mild diarrhea), while the amitriptyline cohort experienced 52 adverse events (most commonly, somnolence) (P < .001). The limitations of the study include the lack of a placebo arm and a relatively small sample size.¹

Greater reduction in pain scores with naltrexone

A 2022 retrospective cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of naltrexone for patients treated at a single outpatient integrative pain management practice in Alaska between 2014 and 2019. The exposure group (n = 36) included patients who had completed at least a 2-month continuous regimen of oral naltrexone 4.5 mg. Controls (n = 42) were selected from the remaining practice population receiving standard care and were primarily matched by diagnosis code, followed by gender, then age +/– 5 years. Patients were divided into subgroups for inflammatory and neuropathic pain.²

The primary outcome measured was the mean change in VAS score or numeric rating score (NRS; both used a 1-10 rating system), which was assessed during a patient’s appointment from initiation of treatment to the most recent visit or at the termination of therapy (intervention interquartile range, 12-14 months). There was no statistically significant difference in VAS/NRS between the low-dose naltrexone and control groups at baseline (6.09 vs 6.38; P = .454). The low-dose naltrexone group experienced a greater reduction in VAS/NRS pain scores compared to the control group (–37.8% vs –4.3%; P < .001).²

Compared with control patients in each group, patients in the inflammatory pain subgroup and the neuropathic pain subgroup who received low-dose naltrexone reported reductions in pain scores of 32% (P < .001) and 44% (P = .048), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mean change in VAS/NRS scores between the inflammatory and neuropathic subgroups (P = .763). A multivariate linear regression analysis did not identify significant variables other than low-dose naltrexone that correlated with pain improvement. The number needed to treat to observe a ≥ 50% reduction in pain scores was 3.2.²

Continue to: Limitations for this study...

Limitations for this study include its small sample size and open-label design.²

Low-dose naltrexone is effective for fibromyalgia pain

A 2020 single-blind prospective dose-­response study utilized the up-and-down method to identify effective naltrexone dose for patients in a Danish university hospital pain clinic. Patients were White women ages 18 to 60 years (N = 25) who had a diagnosis of fibromyalgia unresponsive to traditional pharmacologic treatment. All patients received treatment with low-dose naltrexone (ranging from 0.75 mg to 6.0 mg) but were blinded to dose.³

Studies show that low-dose naltrexone has some effectiveness in a variety of pain conditions—including diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia—with few adverse effects.

Patients were evaluated for improvement in fibromyalgia symptoms using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale—which ranges from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse), with 4 being “no change”—at baseline and after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment with low-dose naltrexone. A patient was considered a responder if they scored 1 to 3 on the follow-up PGI-I scale or if they experienced a > 30% pain reduction on the VAS. If a patient did not respond to their dose, the next patient began treatment at a dose 0.75 mg higher than the previous patient’s ending dose. If a patient did respond to low-dose naltrexone treatment, the next patient’s starting dose was 0.75 mg less than the previous patient’s. Eleven of 25 patients were considered responders.³

The primary outcomes were effective dose for 50% of fibromyalgia patients (3.88 mg; 95% CI, 3.39-4.35) and effective dose for 95% of fibromyalgia patients (5.4 mg; 95% CI, 4.66-6.13). Secondary outcomes were fibromyalgia symptoms as evaluated on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised. Five of the 11 responders reported a > 30% improvement in tenderness and 8 of the 11 responders reported a > 30% decrease in waking unrefreshed.³

Limitations of the study include the short time period of treatment before response was assessed and the decision to use low test ­doses, which may have hindered detection of effective doses > 6 mg in fibromyalgia.³

Editor’s takeaway

Low-dose naltrexone, a less-often-used form of pain management, is a welcome option. Studies show some effectiveness in a variety of pain conditions with few adverse effects. The small number of studies, the small sample sizes, and the limited follow-up duration should encourage more investigation into how to best use this intervention.

Evidence summary

Naltrexone is comparable to amitriptyline for diabetic neuropathy pain

A 2021 randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, crossover clinical trial conducted in India examined the efficacy of low-dose naltrexone vs standard-of-care amitriptyline in patients (N = 67) with painful diabetic neuropathy. Participants were adults (ages 18 to 75 years) with painful diabetic neuropathy who had been on a stable dose of nonopioid pain medication for at least 1 month.¹

Patients were randomly assigned to start receiving naltrexone 2 mg (n = 33) or amitriptyline 10 mg (n = 34). They received their starting medication for 6 weeks (with follow-up every 2 weeks), then completed a 2-week washout period, and then switched to the other study medication for 6 weeks (same follow-up schedule). If patients reported < 20% pain reduction on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS; 0-100 scoring system with 0 = no pain and 100 = worst pain) at a follow-up visit, their medication dose was titrated up, to a maximum of 4 mg of naltrexone or 25 to 50 mg of amitriptyline.¹

The primary outcome of interest was the mean change in VAS pain score following 6 weeks of treatment. There was no statistically different change from baseline VAS pain score between the amitriptyline and nal­trexone groups (mean difference [MD] = 1.6; 95% CI, –0.9 to 4.2; P = 0.21). These findings were consistent across the secondary endpoints (Likert 5-point pain scale and McGill Pain Questionnaire scores). There was no statistically significant difference in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (13 in the naltrexone group vs 11 in the amitriptyline group; P = .81), no reports of decreased sleep quality in either group, and no significant difference in Patients’ Global Impression of Change scores at 6-week evaluation.¹

The naltrexone cohort experienced 8 adverse events (most commonly, mild diarrhea), while the amitriptyline cohort experienced 52 adverse events (most commonly, somnolence) (P < .001). The limitations of the study include the lack of a placebo arm and a relatively small sample size.¹

Greater reduction in pain scores with naltrexone

A 2022 retrospective cohort study evaluated the effectiveness of naltrexone for patients treated at a single outpatient integrative pain management practice in Alaska between 2014 and 2019. The exposure group (n = 36) included patients who had completed at least a 2-month continuous regimen of oral naltrexone 4.5 mg. Controls (n = 42) were selected from the remaining practice population receiving standard care and were primarily matched by diagnosis code, followed by gender, then age +/– 5 years. Patients were divided into subgroups for inflammatory and neuropathic pain.²

The primary outcome measured was the mean change in VAS score or numeric rating score (NRS; both used a 1-10 rating system), which was assessed during a patient’s appointment from initiation of treatment to the most recent visit or at the termination of therapy (intervention interquartile range, 12-14 months). There was no statistically significant difference in VAS/NRS between the low-dose naltrexone and control groups at baseline (6.09 vs 6.38; P = .454). The low-dose naltrexone group experienced a greater reduction in VAS/NRS pain scores compared to the control group (–37.8% vs –4.3%; P < .001).²

Compared with control patients in each group, patients in the inflammatory pain subgroup and the neuropathic pain subgroup who received low-dose naltrexone reported reductions in pain scores of 32% (P < .001) and 44% (P = .048), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in mean change in VAS/NRS scores between the inflammatory and neuropathic subgroups (P = .763). A multivariate linear regression analysis did not identify significant variables other than low-dose naltrexone that correlated with pain improvement. The number needed to treat to observe a ≥ 50% reduction in pain scores was 3.2.²

Continue to: Limitations for this study...

Limitations for this study include its small sample size and open-label design.²

Low-dose naltrexone is effective for fibromyalgia pain

A 2020 single-blind prospective dose-­response study utilized the up-and-down method to identify effective naltrexone dose for patients in a Danish university hospital pain clinic. Patients were White women ages 18 to 60 years (N = 25) who had a diagnosis of fibromyalgia unresponsive to traditional pharmacologic treatment. All patients received treatment with low-dose naltrexone (ranging from 0.75 mg to 6.0 mg) but were blinded to dose.³

Studies show that low-dose naltrexone has some effectiveness in a variety of pain conditions—including diabetic neuropathy and fibromyalgia—with few adverse effects.

Patients were evaluated for improvement in fibromyalgia symptoms using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale—which ranges from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse), with 4 being “no change”—at baseline and after 2 to 3 weeks of treatment with low-dose naltrexone. A patient was considered a responder if they scored 1 to 3 on the follow-up PGI-I scale or if they experienced a > 30% pain reduction on the VAS. If a patient did not respond to their dose, the next patient began treatment at a dose 0.75 mg higher than the previous patient’s ending dose. If a patient did respond to low-dose naltrexone treatment, the next patient’s starting dose was 0.75 mg less than the previous patient’s. Eleven of 25 patients were considered responders.³

The primary outcomes were effective dose for 50% of fibromyalgia patients (3.88 mg; 95% CI, 3.39-4.35) and effective dose for 95% of fibromyalgia patients (5.4 mg; 95% CI, 4.66-6.13). Secondary outcomes were fibromyalgia symptoms as evaluated on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire Revised. Five of the 11 responders reported a > 30% improvement in tenderness and 8 of the 11 responders reported a > 30% decrease in waking unrefreshed.³

Limitations of the study include the short time period of treatment before response was assessed and the decision to use low test ­doses, which may have hindered detection of effective doses > 6 mg in fibromyalgia.³

Editor’s takeaway

Low-dose naltrexone, a less-often-used form of pain management, is a welcome option. Studies show some effectiveness in a variety of pain conditions with few adverse effects. The small number of studies, the small sample sizes, and the limited follow-up duration should encourage more investigation into how to best use this intervention.

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

It’s an ongoing debate in the diabetes world: Is it ideal to consume a very-low-carbohydrate diet, or is it better to go with moderate amounts of healthful carbs?

At the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, Carol F. Kirkpatrick, PhD, RDN, spoke first, arguing in favor of diets consisting of moderate, high-quality carbohydrates.

Dina Hafez Griauzde, MD, countered that very-low-carbohydrate diets are more beneficial for people with diabetes, primarily type 2 diabetes.

Both speakers based their arguments on published evidence but agreed in the end that discussion with patients about individual dietary preferences should play a major role in the ultimate decision.
 

Moderate-carbohydrate eating is best

Dr. Kirkpatrick began by explaining that definitions of “low carb” vary in the literature, which makes comparisons between studies difficult. On the basis of a 2019 review that she coauthored, “moderate” carbohydrate consumption was defined as a diet in which 26%-44% of total daily calories are from carbohydrates. “Low” carbohydrate consumption was defined as a diet in which 10%-25% of calories were from carbohydrates. Consuming less than 10% was defined as a very-low-carbohydrate diet (i.e., a ketogenic diet).

Across studies, she noted, the literature shows that within the first 6 months weight loss is typically greater with carbohydrate-restricted diets than with higher-carbohydrate diets, but that by 1 year and beyond weight loss is similar.

“That can be partly due to the difficulty in people maintaining that very severe dietary restriction, although ... we can all acknowledge that it’s difficult for patients to adhere to any dietary pattern, so for sure by 12 months, the difference in the weight loss is gone between the two,” said Dr. Kirkpatrick, of Midwest Biomedical Research, Pocatello, Idaho.

In a recent meta-analysis of 35 trials that examined the dose-dependent effects of carbohydrate restriction for patients with type 2 diabetes, there was a significant decrease in weight as carbohydrates were reduced. But by 12 months (17 trials), the greatest weight reduction was seen at 35% carbohydrate intake.

“It may just be that people were able to adhere to that moderate intake better,” she explained.

Regarding lipids, in her 2019 review and in several meta-analyses since, the effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) varied. For some patients, adhering to a low-carb diet led to reductions in LDL-C, especially if the participants also lost weight, whereas in other patients, a low-carb diet led to an increase in LDL-C.

Either way, a high intake of saturated fatty acids is key to an increase in LDL-C, Dr. Kirkpatrick noted. “So, it’s important that, if a patient chooses to follow a very low carbohydrate diet or any kind of dietary pattern that restricts carbohydrate, that they replace the carbohydrate with unsaturated fat and not saturated fatty acid foods to avoid that increase in LDL-C.”

Generally, the evidence also shows that carbohydrate restriction typically leads to lower triglyceride levels and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, the same meta-analysis showed that the greatest reduction in LDL-C occurred at about 40% carbohydrate consumption.

Another recent meta-analysis showed that LDL-C rose significantly by an average 12.4 mg/dL with very-low-carb (3%-30%) diets, but only slightly, by 0.4 mg/dL, with moderate carb (40%-45%) intake.

Consuming very-low-carb diets did lead to greater reductions in triglycerides, compared with consuming moderate carb diets (23.9 mg/dL vs. 8.9 mg/dL).

“However, in terms of cardiovascular health, we are not entirely sure what that means. ... We have to look at the overall results in the presence of both triglyceride lowering as well as LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Kirkpatrick noted.

Carbohydrate restriction did consistently lead to lower hemoglobin A1c levels by an average of 0.4, 0.6, and 1.0 percentage points at 6 months for diets of 40%, 30%, and 15% carbohydrate, respectively. However, by 12 months, the effect had waned to 0.15, 0.2, and 0.4 A1c percentage points.

“Again, carbohydrate restriction, especially severe, is difficult for people to adhere to, and moderate carbohydrate intake would allow our patients to consume an appropriate amount of carbohydrate and still achieve improved glycemic control,” Dr. Kirkpatrick said.

Two large randomized controlled trials – PREDIMED and CORDIOPREV – examined the effects of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular disease prevention. Both showed a decrease in cardiovascular events with the Mediterranean diet, which involves consuming moderate amounts of carbohydrates.

“The Mediterranean dietary pattern has the strongest evidence for benefit, and it’s moderate in carbohydrates,” she concluded.
 

Very-low-carbohydrate eating is best

Dr. Griauzde was a last-minute replacement speaker for William S. Yancy Jr, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and presented his slides. She argued that consuming a very low carb diet improves glycemia and that it does not increase but possibly lowers cardiovascular risk.

She began by noting that prior to the discovery of insulin very-low-carb diets had been consumed for over a century to prolong life for people with type 1 diabetes.

“We have long recognized the deleterious role of carbohydrate in type 1 diabetes management, and we have increasingly recognized that role in the management of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Griauzde of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

In a small study that compared maintaining a very-low-carb diet for 2 weeks with maintaining a high-carb diet for 2 weeks, total glucose areas under the curve were substantially lower (P < .05) during the low-carb phase, while A1c levels dropped from 7.3% to 6.8% (P = .006).

“We don’t see those outcomes with meds,” Dr. Griauzde noted, adding, “A diet very low in carbohydrates is one of the most potent tools we have to help our patients achieve glycemic control.”

Dr. Griauzde said that the carbohydrate-insulin model provides an explanation for why dietary carbohydrates are particularly obesogenic and metabolically harmful. That model contrasts with the energy balance model, which suggests that all calories are equal.

The rationale of the carbohydrate-insulin model is that dietary carbohydrate – either sugar or starch – raises serum glucose and insulin levels. A carbohydrate-restricted diet therefore reduces the dietary contribution to serum glucose, which then results in lower insulin levels. Insulin is a potent stimulator of lipogenesis (fat storage), and it is a potent inhibitor of lipolysis (the burning of fat). By lowering insulin levels, stored body fat is burned, serum ketone levels increase, and body weight is lowered.

This model suggests that, when insulin levels are chronically high because of excess carbohydrate consumption, circulating fuels are lowered, which leads to an increase in hunger and to overeating. This was demonstrated in a study that compared different levels of isocaloric glycemic index diets in 12 teenage boys with overweight or obesity. The higher-carbohydrate meals led to higher glucose and insulin levels and more food consumption.

In a systematic review of 13 trials of restricted-carbohydrate diets (< 45% carbohydrates) for adults with diabetes, the degree of improvement in A1c level correlated with the degree of carbohydrate restriction over 2-26 weeks (P = .013).

And in a network meta-analysis of 56 trials that compared nine diets among a total of 4,937 participants with type 2 diabetes, one conclusion was that “for reducing A1c, the low-carbohydrate diet was ranked as the best dietary approach (SUCRA: 84%), followed by the Mediterranean diet (80%), and Paleolithic diet (76%), compared with a control diet.”

Regarding the criticism that very-low-carbohydrate diets are high in saturated fat and therefore raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Griauzde pointed to another meta-analysis of 21 prospective studies with more than 300,000 participants with 5-25 years of follow-up. In that analysis, the intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke.

Furthermore, a 12-week randomized controlled trial that involved 40 adults with overweight also suggested that a very-low-carb diet may be superior to a low-fat diet in improving aspects of the metabolic syndrome, including body mass index, lipid levels, and insulin sensitivity. Small LDL particles, which are more atherogenic than larger LDL particles, also decreased despite a threefold increase in saturated fat intake.
 

Rebuttals: Overall diet, patient preference matter

During the rebuttals, Dr. Kirkpatrick pointed out that large LDL particles are also atherogenic. In addition, she noted that the studies that showed that saturated fat isn’t associated with cardiovascular disease didn’t consider the macronutrients that replaced the saturated fat.

“It really is about increasing consumption of foods that we know are associated with cardiovascular benefit, including plant-based foods that are high quality and not refined carbohydrates ... and healthy protein sources. ... Hopefully we can step away from just looking at macronutrients and look at the total amount of food that people are choosing to eat.”

Importantly, Dr. Kirkpatrick said, patients need to be asked about their current dietary patterns and preferences. “Interventions should be patient centered and sensitive to cultural differences. Personalized lifestyle interventions increase the likelihood of success.”

Dr. Griauzde pointed out that newer antiobesity drugs can be added to any diet to decrease appetite and enhance adherence.

Dr. Griauzde also observed, “We can label a very-low-carbohydrate diet ‘extreme,’ but maybe, from the patient’s perspective, it’s extreme to take 200 units of insulin a day. If you can give them the opportunity to discontinue use of the insulin by following a very-low-carbohydrate dietary pattern, that is the opportunity that our patients deserve to have.”

But overall, she agreed with Dr. Kirkpatrick about individualizing any dietary approach: “We will never know from any of the trials that have been done or that will be done in the future what diet is best for an individual patient. ... Our job is to help our patients find the dietary approach that works best for them.”

Dr. Kirkpatrick is a clinical scientist with Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received funding from various food and pharmaceutical companies. She has not received any direct funding. Dr. Yancy is a consultant for The Simply Good Foods Co. Dr. Griauzde has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s an ongoing debate in the diabetes world: Is it ideal to consume a very-low-carbohydrate diet, or is it better to go with moderate amounts of healthful carbs?

At the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, Carol F. Kirkpatrick, PhD, RDN, spoke first, arguing in favor of diets consisting of moderate, high-quality carbohydrates.

Dina Hafez Griauzde, MD, countered that very-low-carbohydrate diets are more beneficial for people with diabetes, primarily type 2 diabetes.

Both speakers based their arguments on published evidence but agreed in the end that discussion with patients about individual dietary preferences should play a major role in the ultimate decision.
 

Moderate-carbohydrate eating is best

Dr. Kirkpatrick began by explaining that definitions of “low carb” vary in the literature, which makes comparisons between studies difficult. On the basis of a 2019 review that she coauthored, “moderate” carbohydrate consumption was defined as a diet in which 26%-44% of total daily calories are from carbohydrates. “Low” carbohydrate consumption was defined as a diet in which 10%-25% of calories were from carbohydrates. Consuming less than 10% was defined as a very-low-carbohydrate diet (i.e., a ketogenic diet).

Across studies, she noted, the literature shows that within the first 6 months weight loss is typically greater with carbohydrate-restricted diets than with higher-carbohydrate diets, but that by 1 year and beyond weight loss is similar.

“That can be partly due to the difficulty in people maintaining that very severe dietary restriction, although ... we can all acknowledge that it’s difficult for patients to adhere to any dietary pattern, so for sure by 12 months, the difference in the weight loss is gone between the two,” said Dr. Kirkpatrick, of Midwest Biomedical Research, Pocatello, Idaho.

In a recent meta-analysis of 35 trials that examined the dose-dependent effects of carbohydrate restriction for patients with type 2 diabetes, there was a significant decrease in weight as carbohydrates were reduced. But by 12 months (17 trials), the greatest weight reduction was seen at 35% carbohydrate intake.

“It may just be that people were able to adhere to that moderate intake better,” she explained.

Regarding lipids, in her 2019 review and in several meta-analyses since, the effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) varied. For some patients, adhering to a low-carb diet led to reductions in LDL-C, especially if the participants also lost weight, whereas in other patients, a low-carb diet led to an increase in LDL-C.

Either way, a high intake of saturated fatty acids is key to an increase in LDL-C, Dr. Kirkpatrick noted. “So, it’s important that, if a patient chooses to follow a very low carbohydrate diet or any kind of dietary pattern that restricts carbohydrate, that they replace the carbohydrate with unsaturated fat and not saturated fatty acid foods to avoid that increase in LDL-C.”

Generally, the evidence also shows that carbohydrate restriction typically leads to lower triglyceride levels and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, the same meta-analysis showed that the greatest reduction in LDL-C occurred at about 40% carbohydrate consumption.

Another recent meta-analysis showed that LDL-C rose significantly by an average 12.4 mg/dL with very-low-carb (3%-30%) diets, but only slightly, by 0.4 mg/dL, with moderate carb (40%-45%) intake.

Consuming very-low-carb diets did lead to greater reductions in triglycerides, compared with consuming moderate carb diets (23.9 mg/dL vs. 8.9 mg/dL).

“However, in terms of cardiovascular health, we are not entirely sure what that means. ... We have to look at the overall results in the presence of both triglyceride lowering as well as LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Kirkpatrick noted.

Carbohydrate restriction did consistently lead to lower hemoglobin A1c levels by an average of 0.4, 0.6, and 1.0 percentage points at 6 months for diets of 40%, 30%, and 15% carbohydrate, respectively. However, by 12 months, the effect had waned to 0.15, 0.2, and 0.4 A1c percentage points.

“Again, carbohydrate restriction, especially severe, is difficult for people to adhere to, and moderate carbohydrate intake would allow our patients to consume an appropriate amount of carbohydrate and still achieve improved glycemic control,” Dr. Kirkpatrick said.

Two large randomized controlled trials – PREDIMED and CORDIOPREV – examined the effects of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular disease prevention. Both showed a decrease in cardiovascular events with the Mediterranean diet, which involves consuming moderate amounts of carbohydrates.

“The Mediterranean dietary pattern has the strongest evidence for benefit, and it’s moderate in carbohydrates,” she concluded.
 

Very-low-carbohydrate eating is best

Dr. Griauzde was a last-minute replacement speaker for William S. Yancy Jr, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and presented his slides. She argued that consuming a very low carb diet improves glycemia and that it does not increase but possibly lowers cardiovascular risk.

She began by noting that prior to the discovery of insulin very-low-carb diets had been consumed for over a century to prolong life for people with type 1 diabetes.

“We have long recognized the deleterious role of carbohydrate in type 1 diabetes management, and we have increasingly recognized that role in the management of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Griauzde of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

In a small study that compared maintaining a very-low-carb diet for 2 weeks with maintaining a high-carb diet for 2 weeks, total glucose areas under the curve were substantially lower (P < .05) during the low-carb phase, while A1c levels dropped from 7.3% to 6.8% (P = .006).

“We don’t see those outcomes with meds,” Dr. Griauzde noted, adding, “A diet very low in carbohydrates is one of the most potent tools we have to help our patients achieve glycemic control.”

Dr. Griauzde said that the carbohydrate-insulin model provides an explanation for why dietary carbohydrates are particularly obesogenic and metabolically harmful. That model contrasts with the energy balance model, which suggests that all calories are equal.

The rationale of the carbohydrate-insulin model is that dietary carbohydrate – either sugar or starch – raises serum glucose and insulin levels. A carbohydrate-restricted diet therefore reduces the dietary contribution to serum glucose, which then results in lower insulin levels. Insulin is a potent stimulator of lipogenesis (fat storage), and it is a potent inhibitor of lipolysis (the burning of fat). By lowering insulin levels, stored body fat is burned, serum ketone levels increase, and body weight is lowered.

This model suggests that, when insulin levels are chronically high because of excess carbohydrate consumption, circulating fuels are lowered, which leads to an increase in hunger and to overeating. This was demonstrated in a study that compared different levels of isocaloric glycemic index diets in 12 teenage boys with overweight or obesity. The higher-carbohydrate meals led to higher glucose and insulin levels and more food consumption.

In a systematic review of 13 trials of restricted-carbohydrate diets (< 45% carbohydrates) for adults with diabetes, the degree of improvement in A1c level correlated with the degree of carbohydrate restriction over 2-26 weeks (P = .013).

And in a network meta-analysis of 56 trials that compared nine diets among a total of 4,937 participants with type 2 diabetes, one conclusion was that “for reducing A1c, the low-carbohydrate diet was ranked as the best dietary approach (SUCRA: 84%), followed by the Mediterranean diet (80%), and Paleolithic diet (76%), compared with a control diet.”

Regarding the criticism that very-low-carbohydrate diets are high in saturated fat and therefore raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Griauzde pointed to another meta-analysis of 21 prospective studies with more than 300,000 participants with 5-25 years of follow-up. In that analysis, the intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke.

Furthermore, a 12-week randomized controlled trial that involved 40 adults with overweight also suggested that a very-low-carb diet may be superior to a low-fat diet in improving aspects of the metabolic syndrome, including body mass index, lipid levels, and insulin sensitivity. Small LDL particles, which are more atherogenic than larger LDL particles, also decreased despite a threefold increase in saturated fat intake.
 

Rebuttals: Overall diet, patient preference matter

During the rebuttals, Dr. Kirkpatrick pointed out that large LDL particles are also atherogenic. In addition, she noted that the studies that showed that saturated fat isn’t associated with cardiovascular disease didn’t consider the macronutrients that replaced the saturated fat.

“It really is about increasing consumption of foods that we know are associated with cardiovascular benefit, including plant-based foods that are high quality and not refined carbohydrates ... and healthy protein sources. ... Hopefully we can step away from just looking at macronutrients and look at the total amount of food that people are choosing to eat.”

Importantly, Dr. Kirkpatrick said, patients need to be asked about their current dietary patterns and preferences. “Interventions should be patient centered and sensitive to cultural differences. Personalized lifestyle interventions increase the likelihood of success.”

Dr. Griauzde pointed out that newer antiobesity drugs can be added to any diet to decrease appetite and enhance adherence.

Dr. Griauzde also observed, “We can label a very-low-carbohydrate diet ‘extreme,’ but maybe, from the patient’s perspective, it’s extreme to take 200 units of insulin a day. If you can give them the opportunity to discontinue use of the insulin by following a very-low-carbohydrate dietary pattern, that is the opportunity that our patients deserve to have.”

But overall, she agreed with Dr. Kirkpatrick about individualizing any dietary approach: “We will never know from any of the trials that have been done or that will be done in the future what diet is best for an individual patient. ... Our job is to help our patients find the dietary approach that works best for them.”

Dr. Kirkpatrick is a clinical scientist with Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received funding from various food and pharmaceutical companies. She has not received any direct funding. Dr. Yancy is a consultant for The Simply Good Foods Co. Dr. Griauzde has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s an ongoing debate in the diabetes world: Is it ideal to consume a very-low-carbohydrate diet, or is it better to go with moderate amounts of healthful carbs?

At the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, Carol F. Kirkpatrick, PhD, RDN, spoke first, arguing in favor of diets consisting of moderate, high-quality carbohydrates.

Dina Hafez Griauzde, MD, countered that very-low-carbohydrate diets are more beneficial for people with diabetes, primarily type 2 diabetes.

Both speakers based their arguments on published evidence but agreed in the end that discussion with patients about individual dietary preferences should play a major role in the ultimate decision.
 

Moderate-carbohydrate eating is best

Dr. Kirkpatrick began by explaining that definitions of “low carb” vary in the literature, which makes comparisons between studies difficult. On the basis of a 2019 review that she coauthored, “moderate” carbohydrate consumption was defined as a diet in which 26%-44% of total daily calories are from carbohydrates. “Low” carbohydrate consumption was defined as a diet in which 10%-25% of calories were from carbohydrates. Consuming less than 10% was defined as a very-low-carbohydrate diet (i.e., a ketogenic diet).

Across studies, she noted, the literature shows that within the first 6 months weight loss is typically greater with carbohydrate-restricted diets than with higher-carbohydrate diets, but that by 1 year and beyond weight loss is similar.

“That can be partly due to the difficulty in people maintaining that very severe dietary restriction, although ... we can all acknowledge that it’s difficult for patients to adhere to any dietary pattern, so for sure by 12 months, the difference in the weight loss is gone between the two,” said Dr. Kirkpatrick, of Midwest Biomedical Research, Pocatello, Idaho.

In a recent meta-analysis of 35 trials that examined the dose-dependent effects of carbohydrate restriction for patients with type 2 diabetes, there was a significant decrease in weight as carbohydrates were reduced. But by 12 months (17 trials), the greatest weight reduction was seen at 35% carbohydrate intake.

“It may just be that people were able to adhere to that moderate intake better,” she explained.

Regarding lipids, in her 2019 review and in several meta-analyses since, the effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) varied. For some patients, adhering to a low-carb diet led to reductions in LDL-C, especially if the participants also lost weight, whereas in other patients, a low-carb diet led to an increase in LDL-C.

Either way, a high intake of saturated fatty acids is key to an increase in LDL-C, Dr. Kirkpatrick noted. “So, it’s important that, if a patient chooses to follow a very low carbohydrate diet or any kind of dietary pattern that restricts carbohydrate, that they replace the carbohydrate with unsaturated fat and not saturated fatty acid foods to avoid that increase in LDL-C.”

Generally, the evidence also shows that carbohydrate restriction typically leads to lower triglyceride levels and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, the same meta-analysis showed that the greatest reduction in LDL-C occurred at about 40% carbohydrate consumption.

Another recent meta-analysis showed that LDL-C rose significantly by an average 12.4 mg/dL with very-low-carb (3%-30%) diets, but only slightly, by 0.4 mg/dL, with moderate carb (40%-45%) intake.

Consuming very-low-carb diets did lead to greater reductions in triglycerides, compared with consuming moderate carb diets (23.9 mg/dL vs. 8.9 mg/dL).

“However, in terms of cardiovascular health, we are not entirely sure what that means. ... We have to look at the overall results in the presence of both triglyceride lowering as well as LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Kirkpatrick noted.

Carbohydrate restriction did consistently lead to lower hemoglobin A1c levels by an average of 0.4, 0.6, and 1.0 percentage points at 6 months for diets of 40%, 30%, and 15% carbohydrate, respectively. However, by 12 months, the effect had waned to 0.15, 0.2, and 0.4 A1c percentage points.

“Again, carbohydrate restriction, especially severe, is difficult for people to adhere to, and moderate carbohydrate intake would allow our patients to consume an appropriate amount of carbohydrate and still achieve improved glycemic control,” Dr. Kirkpatrick said.

Two large randomized controlled trials – PREDIMED and CORDIOPREV – examined the effects of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular disease prevention. Both showed a decrease in cardiovascular events with the Mediterranean diet, which involves consuming moderate amounts of carbohydrates.

“The Mediterranean dietary pattern has the strongest evidence for benefit, and it’s moderate in carbohydrates,” she concluded.
 

Very-low-carbohydrate eating is best

Dr. Griauzde was a last-minute replacement speaker for William S. Yancy Jr, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and presented his slides. She argued that consuming a very low carb diet improves glycemia and that it does not increase but possibly lowers cardiovascular risk.

She began by noting that prior to the discovery of insulin very-low-carb diets had been consumed for over a century to prolong life for people with type 1 diabetes.

“We have long recognized the deleterious role of carbohydrate in type 1 diabetes management, and we have increasingly recognized that role in the management of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Griauzde of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

In a small study that compared maintaining a very-low-carb diet for 2 weeks with maintaining a high-carb diet for 2 weeks, total glucose areas under the curve were substantially lower (P < .05) during the low-carb phase, while A1c levels dropped from 7.3% to 6.8% (P = .006).

“We don’t see those outcomes with meds,” Dr. Griauzde noted, adding, “A diet very low in carbohydrates is one of the most potent tools we have to help our patients achieve glycemic control.”

Dr. Griauzde said that the carbohydrate-insulin model provides an explanation for why dietary carbohydrates are particularly obesogenic and metabolically harmful. That model contrasts with the energy balance model, which suggests that all calories are equal.

The rationale of the carbohydrate-insulin model is that dietary carbohydrate – either sugar or starch – raises serum glucose and insulin levels. A carbohydrate-restricted diet therefore reduces the dietary contribution to serum glucose, which then results in lower insulin levels. Insulin is a potent stimulator of lipogenesis (fat storage), and it is a potent inhibitor of lipolysis (the burning of fat). By lowering insulin levels, stored body fat is burned, serum ketone levels increase, and body weight is lowered.

This model suggests that, when insulin levels are chronically high because of excess carbohydrate consumption, circulating fuels are lowered, which leads to an increase in hunger and to overeating. This was demonstrated in a study that compared different levels of isocaloric glycemic index diets in 12 teenage boys with overweight or obesity. The higher-carbohydrate meals led to higher glucose and insulin levels and more food consumption.

In a systematic review of 13 trials of restricted-carbohydrate diets (< 45% carbohydrates) for adults with diabetes, the degree of improvement in A1c level correlated with the degree of carbohydrate restriction over 2-26 weeks (P = .013).

And in a network meta-analysis of 56 trials that compared nine diets among a total of 4,937 participants with type 2 diabetes, one conclusion was that “for reducing A1c, the low-carbohydrate diet was ranked as the best dietary approach (SUCRA: 84%), followed by the Mediterranean diet (80%), and Paleolithic diet (76%), compared with a control diet.”

Regarding the criticism that very-low-carbohydrate diets are high in saturated fat and therefore raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Griauzde pointed to another meta-analysis of 21 prospective studies with more than 300,000 participants with 5-25 years of follow-up. In that analysis, the intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke.

Furthermore, a 12-week randomized controlled trial that involved 40 adults with overweight also suggested that a very-low-carb diet may be superior to a low-fat diet in improving aspects of the metabolic syndrome, including body mass index, lipid levels, and insulin sensitivity. Small LDL particles, which are more atherogenic than larger LDL particles, also decreased despite a threefold increase in saturated fat intake.
 

Rebuttals: Overall diet, patient preference matter

During the rebuttals, Dr. Kirkpatrick pointed out that large LDL particles are also atherogenic. In addition, she noted that the studies that showed that saturated fat isn’t associated with cardiovascular disease didn’t consider the macronutrients that replaced the saturated fat.

“It really is about increasing consumption of foods that we know are associated with cardiovascular benefit, including plant-based foods that are high quality and not refined carbohydrates ... and healthy protein sources. ... Hopefully we can step away from just looking at macronutrients and look at the total amount of food that people are choosing to eat.”

Importantly, Dr. Kirkpatrick said, patients need to be asked about their current dietary patterns and preferences. “Interventions should be patient centered and sensitive to cultural differences. Personalized lifestyle interventions increase the likelihood of success.”

Dr. Griauzde pointed out that newer antiobesity drugs can be added to any diet to decrease appetite and enhance adherence.

Dr. Griauzde also observed, “We can label a very-low-carbohydrate diet ‘extreme,’ but maybe, from the patient’s perspective, it’s extreme to take 200 units of insulin a day. If you can give them the opportunity to discontinue use of the insulin by following a very-low-carbohydrate dietary pattern, that is the opportunity that our patients deserve to have.”

But overall, she agreed with Dr. Kirkpatrick about individualizing any dietary approach: “We will never know from any of the trials that have been done or that will be done in the future what diet is best for an individual patient. ... Our job is to help our patients find the dietary approach that works best for them.”

Dr. Kirkpatrick is a clinical scientist with Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received funding from various food and pharmaceutical companies. She has not received any direct funding. Dr. Yancy is a consultant for The Simply Good Foods Co. Dr. Griauzde has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted two new clearances to Welldoc’s BlueStar digital health platform to enable personalized insulin dosing recommendations for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The latest clearance, announced on Aug. 23, enables the app-based platform to provide bolus insulin dose recommendations that are based on glucose and trend data from a compatible continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. On Aug. 15, the FDA cleared the BlueStar to use connected insulin dosing data in personalized bolus insulin dosing recommendations.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“Welldoc is the first company to receive clearance for a CGM-informed bolus calculator specifically designed for adults who manage their diabetes with multiple daily injections of insulin,” according to a company statement.

“With this clearance, Welldoc is filling a significant gap for people who require complex insulin regimens. By connecting directly with CGM data and using both glucose values and trend arrows, the BlueStar solution will provide precise and in-the-moment insulin dosing guidance directly to individuals, helping them reach their glucose targets,” endocrinologist Grazia Aleppo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in the statement.

The new features extend the platform’s existing digital diet and lifestyle coaching capabilities. Previous FDA clearances included expansions to use most types of available insulins, including bolus and premixed insulin titration for patients with type 2 diabetes, in September 2021 and for basal insulin adjustment in June 2020.

Dr. Aleppo was a principal investigator in Welldoc’s clinical validation study for BlueStar.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted two new clearances to Welldoc’s BlueStar digital health platform to enable personalized insulin dosing recommendations for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The latest clearance, announced on Aug. 23, enables the app-based platform to provide bolus insulin dose recommendations that are based on glucose and trend data from a compatible continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. On Aug. 15, the FDA cleared the BlueStar to use connected insulin dosing data in personalized bolus insulin dosing recommendations.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“Welldoc is the first company to receive clearance for a CGM-informed bolus calculator specifically designed for adults who manage their diabetes with multiple daily injections of insulin,” according to a company statement.

“With this clearance, Welldoc is filling a significant gap for people who require complex insulin regimens. By connecting directly with CGM data and using both glucose values and trend arrows, the BlueStar solution will provide precise and in-the-moment insulin dosing guidance directly to individuals, helping them reach their glucose targets,” endocrinologist Grazia Aleppo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in the statement.

The new features extend the platform’s existing digital diet and lifestyle coaching capabilities. Previous FDA clearances included expansions to use most types of available insulins, including bolus and premixed insulin titration for patients with type 2 diabetes, in September 2021 and for basal insulin adjustment in June 2020.

Dr. Aleppo was a principal investigator in Welldoc’s clinical validation study for BlueStar.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted two new clearances to Welldoc’s BlueStar digital health platform to enable personalized insulin dosing recommendations for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

The latest clearance, announced on Aug. 23, enables the app-based platform to provide bolus insulin dose recommendations that are based on glucose and trend data from a compatible continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device. On Aug. 15, the FDA cleared the BlueStar to use connected insulin dosing data in personalized bolus insulin dosing recommendations.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“Welldoc is the first company to receive clearance for a CGM-informed bolus calculator specifically designed for adults who manage their diabetes with multiple daily injections of insulin,” according to a company statement.

“With this clearance, Welldoc is filling a significant gap for people who require complex insulin regimens. By connecting directly with CGM data and using both glucose values and trend arrows, the BlueStar solution will provide precise and in-the-moment insulin dosing guidance directly to individuals, helping them reach their glucose targets,” endocrinologist Grazia Aleppo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in the statement.

The new features extend the platform’s existing digital diet and lifestyle coaching capabilities. Previous FDA clearances included expansions to use most types of available insulins, including bolus and premixed insulin titration for patients with type 2 diabetes, in September 2021 and for basal insulin adjustment in June 2020.

Dr. Aleppo was a principal investigator in Welldoc’s clinical validation study for BlueStar.

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

Performing any level of leisure-time physical activity reduces the risk for neuropathy and nephropathy in individuals with type 2 diabetes, by between one-fifth and one third, although the impact on retinopathy is weaker, reveals a cohort study of U.K. individuals.

The research, based on data from more than 18,000 participants in the U.K. Biobank, suggests that the minimal level of self-reported activity to reduce the risk for both neuropathy and nephropathy may be the equivalent of less than 1.5 hours of walking per week.

The results are “encouraging and reassuring for both physicians and patients,” lead author Frederik P.B. Kristensen, MSc, PhD student, department of clinical epidemiology, Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in an interview.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Impact of exercise on microvascular complications in T2D has been uncertain

The authors point out that microvascular complications – such as nerve damage (neuropathy), kidney problems (nephropathy), and eye complications (retinopathy) – occur in more than 50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes and have a “substantial impact” on quality of life, on top of the impact of macrovascular complications (such as cardiovascular disease), disability, and mortality.

Although physical activity is seen as a “cornerstone in the multifactorial management of type 2 diabetes because of its beneficial effects on metabolic risk factors,” the impact on microvascular complications is “uncertain” and the evidence is limited and “conflicting.”

The researchers therefore sought to examine the dose-response association, including the minimal effective level, between leisure-time physical activity and neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy.

They conducted a cohort study of individuals aged 37-82 years from the U.K. Biobank who had type 2 diabetes, which was identified using the Eastwood algorithm and/or an A1c greater than or equal to 48 mmol/mol (6.5%).

Individuals with type 1 diabetes or gestational diabetes were excluded, as were those with major disabling somatic disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and mental disorders, among others.

Leisure-time physical activity was based on the self-reported frequency, duration, and types of physical activities and was combined to calculate the total leisure time activity in MET-hours per week.

Using the American Diabetes Association/World Health Organization recommendations of 150-300 minutes of moderate to vigorous leisure-time physical activity per week, the researchers determined the recommended moderate activity level to be 150 minutes, (equivalent to 2.5 hours, or 7.5 MET-hours per week).

In all, 18,092 individuals with type 2 diabetes were included in the analysis, of whom 37% were women. The mean age was 60 years.

Ten percent of participants performed no leisure-time physical activity, 38% performed activity below the threshold for moderate activity, 20% performed at the recommended level, and 32% were more active.

Those performing no physical activity were more likely to be women, to be younger, to have a higher body mass index, and to have a greater average A1c, as well as have a more unfavorable sociodemographic and behavioral profile.

Over a median follow-up of 12.1 years, 3.7% of the participants were diagnosed with neuropathy, 10.2% with nephropathy, and 11.7% with retinopathy, equating to an incidence per 1,000 person-years of 3.5, 9,8, and 11.4, respectively.

The researchers found that any level of physical activity was associated with an approximate reduction in the risk for neuropathy and nephropathy.

Multivariate analysis indicated that, compared with no physical activity, activity below the recommended level was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for neuropathy of 0.71, whereas the aHR for activity at the recommended level was 0.73 and that for activity above the recommended level was 0.67.

The aHR for nephropathy, compared with no physical activity, was 0.79 for activity below the recommended level, 0.80 for activity at the recommended level, and 0.80 for activity above the recommended level.

The association between physical activity and retinopathy was weaker, however, at aHRs of 0.91, 0.91, and 0.98 for activity below, at, and above the recommended level, respectively.

The researchers suggest that this lower association could be due to differences in the etiology of the different forms of microvascular complications.

Hyperglycemia is the key driver in the development of retinopathy, they note, whereas other metabolic risk factors, such as obesity, insulin resistance, inflammation, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, play a role in neuropathy and nephropathy.

The associations were also less pronounced in women.

Mr. Kristensen said that this is “an important area that needs to be addressed.”

“While different rates between men and women regarding incidence of type 2 diabetes, metabolic risk factors, complications, and the initiation of, and adherence to, therapy have been found,” he continued, “the exact mechanisms remain unclear. We need a further understanding of sex-differences in metabolic regulation, as well as in material living conditions, social and psychological factors, and access to health care, which may influence the risk of complications.”

Mr. Kristensen added, “Sex differences may be present in more areas than we are aware.”

Mr. Kristensen is supported by a PhD grant from Aarhus University. Other authors received funding from the Danish Diabetes Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the New South Wales Government, the Spanish Ministry of Universities, the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR (Plan de Recuperación) through a Margarita Salas contract of the University of Vigo, and the Government of Andalusia, Research Talent Recruitment Programme. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Performing any level of leisure-time physical activity reduces the risk for neuropathy and nephropathy in individuals with type 2 diabetes, by between one-fifth and one third, although the impact on retinopathy is weaker, reveals a cohort study of U.K. individuals.

The research, based on data from more than 18,000 participants in the U.K. Biobank, suggests that the minimal level of self-reported activity to reduce the risk for both neuropathy and nephropathy may be the equivalent of less than 1.5 hours of walking per week.

The results are “encouraging and reassuring for both physicians and patients,” lead author Frederik P.B. Kristensen, MSc, PhD student, department of clinical epidemiology, Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in an interview.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Impact of exercise on microvascular complications in T2D has been uncertain

The authors point out that microvascular complications – such as nerve damage (neuropathy), kidney problems (nephropathy), and eye complications (retinopathy) – occur in more than 50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes and have a “substantial impact” on quality of life, on top of the impact of macrovascular complications (such as cardiovascular disease), disability, and mortality.

Although physical activity is seen as a “cornerstone in the multifactorial management of type 2 diabetes because of its beneficial effects on metabolic risk factors,” the impact on microvascular complications is “uncertain” and the evidence is limited and “conflicting.”

The researchers therefore sought to examine the dose-response association, including the minimal effective level, between leisure-time physical activity and neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy.

They conducted a cohort study of individuals aged 37-82 years from the U.K. Biobank who had type 2 diabetes, which was identified using the Eastwood algorithm and/or an A1c greater than or equal to 48 mmol/mol (6.5%).

Individuals with type 1 diabetes or gestational diabetes were excluded, as were those with major disabling somatic disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and mental disorders, among others.

Leisure-time physical activity was based on the self-reported frequency, duration, and types of physical activities and was combined to calculate the total leisure time activity in MET-hours per week.

Using the American Diabetes Association/World Health Organization recommendations of 150-300 minutes of moderate to vigorous leisure-time physical activity per week, the researchers determined the recommended moderate activity level to be 150 minutes, (equivalent to 2.5 hours, or 7.5 MET-hours per week).

In all, 18,092 individuals with type 2 diabetes were included in the analysis, of whom 37% were women. The mean age was 60 years.

Ten percent of participants performed no leisure-time physical activity, 38% performed activity below the threshold for moderate activity, 20% performed at the recommended level, and 32% were more active.

Those performing no physical activity were more likely to be women, to be younger, to have a higher body mass index, and to have a greater average A1c, as well as have a more unfavorable sociodemographic and behavioral profile.

Over a median follow-up of 12.1 years, 3.7% of the participants were diagnosed with neuropathy, 10.2% with nephropathy, and 11.7% with retinopathy, equating to an incidence per 1,000 person-years of 3.5, 9,8, and 11.4, respectively.

The researchers found that any level of physical activity was associated with an approximate reduction in the risk for neuropathy and nephropathy.

Multivariate analysis indicated that, compared with no physical activity, activity below the recommended level was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for neuropathy of 0.71, whereas the aHR for activity at the recommended level was 0.73 and that for activity above the recommended level was 0.67.

The aHR for nephropathy, compared with no physical activity, was 0.79 for activity below the recommended level, 0.80 for activity at the recommended level, and 0.80 for activity above the recommended level.

The association between physical activity and retinopathy was weaker, however, at aHRs of 0.91, 0.91, and 0.98 for activity below, at, and above the recommended level, respectively.

The researchers suggest that this lower association could be due to differences in the etiology of the different forms of microvascular complications.

Hyperglycemia is the key driver in the development of retinopathy, they note, whereas other metabolic risk factors, such as obesity, insulin resistance, inflammation, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, play a role in neuropathy and nephropathy.

The associations were also less pronounced in women.

Mr. Kristensen said that this is “an important area that needs to be addressed.”

“While different rates between men and women regarding incidence of type 2 diabetes, metabolic risk factors, complications, and the initiation of, and adherence to, therapy have been found,” he continued, “the exact mechanisms remain unclear. We need a further understanding of sex-differences in metabolic regulation, as well as in material living conditions, social and psychological factors, and access to health care, which may influence the risk of complications.”

Mr. Kristensen added, “Sex differences may be present in more areas than we are aware.”

Mr. Kristensen is supported by a PhD grant from Aarhus University. Other authors received funding from the Danish Diabetes Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the New South Wales Government, the Spanish Ministry of Universities, the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR (Plan de Recuperación) through a Margarita Salas contract of the University of Vigo, and the Government of Andalusia, Research Talent Recruitment Programme. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Performing any level of leisure-time physical activity reduces the risk for neuropathy and nephropathy in individuals with type 2 diabetes, by between one-fifth and one third, although the impact on retinopathy is weaker, reveals a cohort study of U.K. individuals.

The research, based on data from more than 18,000 participants in the U.K. Biobank, suggests that the minimal level of self-reported activity to reduce the risk for both neuropathy and nephropathy may be the equivalent of less than 1.5 hours of walking per week.

The results are “encouraging and reassuring for both physicians and patients,” lead author Frederik P.B. Kristensen, MSc, PhD student, department of clinical epidemiology, Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in an interview.

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

Impact of exercise on microvascular complications in T2D has been uncertain

The authors point out that microvascular complications – such as nerve damage (neuropathy), kidney problems (nephropathy), and eye complications (retinopathy) – occur in more than 50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes and have a “substantial impact” on quality of life, on top of the impact of macrovascular complications (such as cardiovascular disease), disability, and mortality.

Although physical activity is seen as a “cornerstone in the multifactorial management of type 2 diabetes because of its beneficial effects on metabolic risk factors,” the impact on microvascular complications is “uncertain” and the evidence is limited and “conflicting.”

The researchers therefore sought to examine the dose-response association, including the minimal effective level, between leisure-time physical activity and neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy.

They conducted a cohort study of individuals aged 37-82 years from the U.K. Biobank who had type 2 diabetes, which was identified using the Eastwood algorithm and/or an A1c greater than or equal to 48 mmol/mol (6.5%).

Individuals with type 1 diabetes or gestational diabetes were excluded, as were those with major disabling somatic disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and mental disorders, among others.

Leisure-time physical activity was based on the self-reported frequency, duration, and types of physical activities and was combined to calculate the total leisure time activity in MET-hours per week.

Using the American Diabetes Association/World Health Organization recommendations of 150-300 minutes of moderate to vigorous leisure-time physical activity per week, the researchers determined the recommended moderate activity level to be 150 minutes, (equivalent to 2.5 hours, or 7.5 MET-hours per week).

In all, 18,092 individuals with type 2 diabetes were included in the analysis, of whom 37% were women. The mean age was 60 years.

Ten percent of participants performed no leisure-time physical activity, 38% performed activity below the threshold for moderate activity, 20% performed at the recommended level, and 32% were more active.

Those performing no physical activity were more likely to be women, to be younger, to have a higher body mass index, and to have a greater average A1c, as well as have a more unfavorable sociodemographic and behavioral profile.

Over a median follow-up of 12.1 years, 3.7% of the participants were diagnosed with neuropathy, 10.2% with nephropathy, and 11.7% with retinopathy, equating to an incidence per 1,000 person-years of 3.5, 9,8, and 11.4, respectively.

The researchers found that any level of physical activity was associated with an approximate reduction in the risk for neuropathy and nephropathy.

Multivariate analysis indicated that, compared with no physical activity, activity below the recommended level was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for neuropathy of 0.71, whereas the aHR for activity at the recommended level was 0.73 and that for activity above the recommended level was 0.67.

The aHR for nephropathy, compared with no physical activity, was 0.79 for activity below the recommended level, 0.80 for activity at the recommended level, and 0.80 for activity above the recommended level.

The association between physical activity and retinopathy was weaker, however, at aHRs of 0.91, 0.91, and 0.98 for activity below, at, and above the recommended level, respectively.

The researchers suggest that this lower association could be due to differences in the etiology of the different forms of microvascular complications.

Hyperglycemia is the key driver in the development of retinopathy, they note, whereas other metabolic risk factors, such as obesity, insulin resistance, inflammation, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, play a role in neuropathy and nephropathy.

The associations were also less pronounced in women.

Mr. Kristensen said that this is “an important area that needs to be addressed.”

“While different rates between men and women regarding incidence of type 2 diabetes, metabolic risk factors, complications, and the initiation of, and adherence to, therapy have been found,” he continued, “the exact mechanisms remain unclear. We need a further understanding of sex-differences in metabolic regulation, as well as in material living conditions, social and psychological factors, and access to health care, which may influence the risk of complications.”

Mr. Kristensen added, “Sex differences may be present in more areas than we are aware.”

Mr. Kristensen is supported by a PhD grant from Aarhus University. Other authors received funding from the Danish Diabetes Association, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the New South Wales Government, the Spanish Ministry of Universities, the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR (Plan de Recuperación) through a Margarita Salas contract of the University of Vigo, and the Government of Andalusia, Research Talent Recruitment Programme. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.