Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin does not improve COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors.

Major finding: Dapagliflozin vs placebo failed to meet the primary composite outcome of organ dysfunction or all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.10). There was no difference in the rates of new/worsened organ dysfunction, deaths, or clinical improvement between the groups.

Study details: In the DARE-19 phase 3 trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either dapagliflozin (n=625) or placebo (n=625).

Disclosures: The study was funded by AstraZeneca. R Esterline, J Oscarsson, SB Gasparyan, J Buenconsejo, AM Langkilde, and P Ambery are employees and stockholders of AstraZeneca. M Aboudara, E Akin, WKS Barroso, ADM Feitosa, CRH Filho, A Fonseca, K Gosch, RA Gordon, CP Jaeger, LN Maia, DDF Moia, JRL Soto, F Tang, SL Windsor, O Mukhtar, V Chopra, RVP Soares, V Garla, PE Leaes, FS Silveira, and M Pursley declared no conflict of interests. The remaining authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions.

Source: Kosiborod MN et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00180-7.

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin does not improve COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors.

Major finding: Dapagliflozin vs placebo failed to meet the primary composite outcome of organ dysfunction or all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.10). There was no difference in the rates of new/worsened organ dysfunction, deaths, or clinical improvement between the groups.

Study details: In the DARE-19 phase 3 trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either dapagliflozin (n=625) or placebo (n=625).

Disclosures: The study was funded by AstraZeneca. R Esterline, J Oscarsson, SB Gasparyan, J Buenconsejo, AM Langkilde, and P Ambery are employees and stockholders of AstraZeneca. M Aboudara, E Akin, WKS Barroso, ADM Feitosa, CRH Filho, A Fonseca, K Gosch, RA Gordon, CP Jaeger, LN Maia, DDF Moia, JRL Soto, F Tang, SL Windsor, O Mukhtar, V Chopra, RVP Soares, V Garla, PE Leaes, FS Silveira, and M Pursley declared no conflict of interests. The remaining authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions.

Source: Kosiborod MN et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00180-7.

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin does not improve COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors.

Major finding: Dapagliflozin vs placebo failed to meet the primary composite outcome of organ dysfunction or all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.10). There was no difference in the rates of new/worsened organ dysfunction, deaths, or clinical improvement between the groups.

Study details: In the DARE-19 phase 3 trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive either dapagliflozin (n=625) or placebo (n=625).

Disclosures: The study was funded by AstraZeneca. R Esterline, J Oscarsson, SB Gasparyan, J Buenconsejo, AM Langkilde, and P Ambery are employees and stockholders of AstraZeneca. M Aboudara, E Akin, WKS Barroso, ADM Feitosa, CRH Filho, A Fonseca, K Gosch, RA Gordon, CP Jaeger, LN Maia, DDF Moia, JRL Soto, F Tang, SL Windsor, O Mukhtar, V Chopra, RVP Soares, V Garla, PE Leaes, FS Silveira, and M Pursley declared no conflict of interests. The remaining authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions.

Source: Kosiborod MN et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00180-7.

Key clinical point: Canakinumab does not improve survival in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.

Major finding: There was no significant difference in survival without invasive mechanical ventilation between days 3 and 29 with canakinumab vs. placebo (88.8% vs. 85.7%; rate difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −3.1 to 9.3). COVID-19 mortality also did not differ with canakinumab vs. placebo (4.9% vs 7.2%; rate difference, −2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −6.7 to 2.2).

Study details: The data come from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 CAN-COVID trial (n=454).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. All authors received funding from Novartis during the conduct of the study. The authors also reported relationships with other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Caricchio R et al. JAMA. 2021 Jul 20. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.9508.

Key clinical point: Canakinumab does not improve survival in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.

Major finding: There was no significant difference in survival without invasive mechanical ventilation between days 3 and 29 with canakinumab vs. placebo (88.8% vs. 85.7%; rate difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −3.1 to 9.3). COVID-19 mortality also did not differ with canakinumab vs. placebo (4.9% vs 7.2%; rate difference, −2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −6.7 to 2.2).

Study details: The data come from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 CAN-COVID trial (n=454).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. All authors received funding from Novartis during the conduct of the study. The authors also reported relationships with other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Caricchio R et al. JAMA. 2021 Jul 20. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.9508.

Key clinical point: Canakinumab does not improve survival in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.

Major finding: There was no significant difference in survival without invasive mechanical ventilation between days 3 and 29 with canakinumab vs. placebo (88.8% vs. 85.7%; rate difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −3.1 to 9.3). COVID-19 mortality also did not differ with canakinumab vs. placebo (4.9% vs 7.2%; rate difference, −2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −6.7 to 2.2).

Study details: The data come from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 CAN-COVID trial (n=454).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. All authors received funding from Novartis during the conduct of the study. The authors also reported relationships with other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Caricchio R et al. JAMA. 2021 Jul 20. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.9508.

Key clinical point: Inhaled budesonide is associated with a shorter time to recovery but fails to reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in high-risk primary care patients with COVID-19.

Major finding: Budesonide vs usual care was associated with a shorter time to recovery (11.8 days vs 14.7 days). Budesonide was associated with a nonsignificant 2.0% reduction in hospitalization or death compared with usual care.

Study details: The data come from the PRINCIPLE trial, where 2,530 patients were randomly assigned to either inhaled budesonide (n=787), usual care alone (n=1,069), or usual care plus other interventions (n=674).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation. M Bafadhel, D Richards, BR Saville, N Berry, MA Detry, M Fitzgerald, S de Lusignan, MI Andersson, PJ Barnes, REK Russell, S Ramakrishnan, FDR Hobbs, and CC Butler reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Yu LM et al. Lancet. 2021 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01744-X.

Key clinical point: Inhaled budesonide is associated with a shorter time to recovery but fails to reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in high-risk primary care patients with COVID-19.

Major finding: Budesonide vs usual care was associated with a shorter time to recovery (11.8 days vs 14.7 days). Budesonide was associated with a nonsignificant 2.0% reduction in hospitalization or death compared with usual care.

Study details: The data come from the PRINCIPLE trial, where 2,530 patients were randomly assigned to either inhaled budesonide (n=787), usual care alone (n=1,069), or usual care plus other interventions (n=674).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation. M Bafadhel, D Richards, BR Saville, N Berry, MA Detry, M Fitzgerald, S de Lusignan, MI Andersson, PJ Barnes, REK Russell, S Ramakrishnan, FDR Hobbs, and CC Butler reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Yu LM et al. Lancet. 2021 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01744-X.

Key clinical point: Inhaled budesonide is associated with a shorter time to recovery but fails to reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in high-risk primary care patients with COVID-19.

Major finding: Budesonide vs usual care was associated with a shorter time to recovery (11.8 days vs 14.7 days). Budesonide was associated with a nonsignificant 2.0% reduction in hospitalization or death compared with usual care.

Study details: The data come from the PRINCIPLE trial, where 2,530 patients were randomly assigned to either inhaled budesonide (n=787), usual care alone (n=1,069), or usual care plus other interventions (n=674).

Disclosures: The study was funded by the National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation. M Bafadhel, D Richards, BR Saville, N Berry, MA Detry, M Fitzgerald, S de Lusignan, MI Andersson, PJ Barnes, REK Russell, S Ramakrishnan, FDR Hobbs, and CC Butler reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Yu LM et al. Lancet. 2021 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01744-X.

Key clinical point: Presence of pulmonary embolism (PE) is not associated with increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 risk.

Major finding: Risk factors for PE in patients with COVID-19 included male sex, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and circulating D-dimer. Patients with PE did not have an increased risk for mortality compared with those without PE (odds ratio, 1.31; P = .25).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies involving 5,826 patients with COVID-19.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Gómez CA et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 6. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95512-7.

Key clinical point: Presence of pulmonary embolism (PE) is not associated with increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 risk.

Major finding: Risk factors for PE in patients with COVID-19 included male sex, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and circulating D-dimer. Patients with PE did not have an increased risk for mortality compared with those without PE (odds ratio, 1.31; P = .25).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies involving 5,826 patients with COVID-19.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Gómez CA et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 6. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95512-7.

Key clinical point: Presence of pulmonary embolism (PE) is not associated with increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 risk.

Major finding: Risk factors for PE in patients with COVID-19 included male sex, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and circulating D-dimer. Patients with PE did not have an increased risk for mortality compared with those without PE (odds ratio, 1.31; P = .25).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies involving 5,826 patients with COVID-19.

Disclosures: No funding information was available. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Gómez CA et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 6. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95512-7.

Key clinical point: Administration of convalescent plasma within 7 days of symptom onset fails to prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with COVID-19.

Major finding: There was no difference between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in disease progression (30.0% vs 31.9%; risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, −6.0 to 9.8).

Study details: The multicenter, single-blind SIREN-C3PO trial included patients with COVID-19 (n=511) randomly assigned to receive either plasma or placebo in the emergency department.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the Operation Warp Speed interagency program. D Beiser, A Burnett R Davenport, L Dumont, V Durkalski-Mauldin, N El Kassar, L Foster, C Greineder, N Haas, J Hah, A Kaplan, B Kea, F Korley, E Lowell, J McDyer, J Quinn, J Reynolds, R Silbergleit, C Van Huysen, and K Yadav declared no conflict of interests. The remaining authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions.

Source: Korley FK et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2103784.

Key clinical point: Administration of convalescent plasma within 7 days of symptom onset fails to prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with COVID-19.

Major finding: There was no difference between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in disease progression (30.0% vs 31.9%; risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, −6.0 to 9.8).

Study details: The multicenter, single-blind SIREN-C3PO trial included patients with COVID-19 (n=511) randomly assigned to receive either plasma or placebo in the emergency department.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the Operation Warp Speed interagency program. D Beiser, A Burnett R Davenport, L Dumont, V Durkalski-Mauldin, N El Kassar, L Foster, C Greineder, N Haas, J Hah, A Kaplan, B Kea, F Korley, E Lowell, J McDyer, J Quinn, J Reynolds, R Silbergleit, C Van Huysen, and K Yadav declared no conflict of interests. The remaining authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions.

Source: Korley FK et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2103784.

Key clinical point: Administration of convalescent plasma within 7 days of symptom onset fails to prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with COVID-19.

Major finding: There was no difference between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in disease progression (30.0% vs 31.9%; risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, −6.0 to 9.8).

Study details: The multicenter, single-blind SIREN-C3PO trial included patients with COVID-19 (n=511) randomly assigned to receive either plasma or placebo in the emergency department.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the Operation Warp Speed interagency program. D Beiser, A Burnett R Davenport, L Dumont, V Durkalski-Mauldin, N El Kassar, L Foster, C Greineder, N Haas, J Hah, A Kaplan, B Kea, F Korley, E Lowell, J McDyer, J Quinn, J Reynolds, R Silbergleit, C Van Huysen, and K Yadav declared no conflict of interests. The remaining authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and/or research institutions.

Source: Korley FK et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2103784.

Key clinical point: Addition of baricitinib to standard of care treatment may reduce 28-day mortality risk in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but does not significantly reduce the frequency of disease progression.

Major finding: There was a 38.2% relative reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality risk with baricitinib vs placebo. There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and placebo groups in the primary composite endpoint of disease progression outcomes (odds ratio, 0.85; P = .18).

Study details: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned to either baricitinib (n=764) or placebo group (n=761).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. S de Bono, CE Kartman, V Krishnan, R Liao, MLB Piruzeli, A Cardose, S Chakladar, B Crowe, P Reis, X Zhang, and DH Adams are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. RD Pellegrini declared no conflict of interests. Other authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Marconi VC et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Sep 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00331-3.

Key clinical point: Addition of baricitinib to standard of care treatment may reduce 28-day mortality risk in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but does not significantly reduce the frequency of disease progression.

Major finding: There was a 38.2% relative reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality risk with baricitinib vs placebo. There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and placebo groups in the primary composite endpoint of disease progression outcomes (odds ratio, 0.85; P = .18).

Study details: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned to either baricitinib (n=764) or placebo group (n=761).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. S de Bono, CE Kartman, V Krishnan, R Liao, MLB Piruzeli, A Cardose, S Chakladar, B Crowe, P Reis, X Zhang, and DH Adams are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. RD Pellegrini declared no conflict of interests. Other authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Marconi VC et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Sep 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00331-3.

Key clinical point: Addition of baricitinib to standard of care treatment may reduce 28-day mortality risk in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but does not significantly reduce the frequency of disease progression.

Major finding: There was a 38.2% relative reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality risk with baricitinib vs placebo. There was no significant difference between the baricitinib and placebo groups in the primary composite endpoint of disease progression outcomes (odds ratio, 0.85; P = .18).

Study details: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned to either baricitinib (n=764) or placebo group (n=761).

Disclosures: The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. S de Bono, CE Kartman, V Krishnan, R Liao, MLB Piruzeli, A Cardose, S Chakladar, B Crowe, P Reis, X Zhang, and DH Adams are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. RD Pellegrini declared no conflict of interests. Other authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Marconi VC et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Sep 1. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00331-3.

Key clinical point: Individuals with asthma have a 17% lower risk for COVID-19 infection than those without asthma.

Major finding: Individuals with asthma had a lower risk for COVID-19 infection (risk ratio [RR], 0.83; P = .01), but not for COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR, 1.18; P = .08), intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.21; P = .09), and ICU admission (RR, 1.06; P = .65).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 51 studies involving 965,551 individuals with and without asthma who tested positive for COVID-19.

Disclosures: This study was self-funded. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Sunjaya AP et al. Eur Respir J. 2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01209-2021.

Key clinical point: Individuals with asthma have a 17% lower risk for COVID-19 infection than those without asthma.

Major finding: Individuals with asthma had a lower risk for COVID-19 infection (risk ratio [RR], 0.83; P = .01), but not for COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR, 1.18; P = .08), intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.21; P = .09), and ICU admission (RR, 1.06; P = .65).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 51 studies involving 965,551 individuals with and without asthma who tested positive for COVID-19.

Disclosures: This study was self-funded. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Sunjaya AP et al. Eur Respir J. 2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01209-2021.

Key clinical point: Individuals with asthma have a 17% lower risk for COVID-19 infection than those without asthma.

Major finding: Individuals with asthma had a lower risk for COVID-19 infection (risk ratio [RR], 0.83; P = .01), but not for COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR, 1.18; P = .08), intensive care unit admission (RR, 1.21; P = .09), and ICU admission (RR, 1.06; P = .65).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 51 studies involving 965,551 individuals with and without asthma who tested positive for COVID-19.

Disclosures: This study was self-funded. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Sunjaya AP et al. Eur Respir J. 2021 Aug 24. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01209-2021.

Chromoendoscopy

Chromoendoscopy is superior in both the detection and long-term management of dysplasia in IBD when compared to high-definition white-light examination. Chromoendoscopy not only enhances dysplasia detection but further improves the definition of these lesions which then facilitates endoscopic management.

James F. Marion, MD, is professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of education and outreach at The Susan and Leonard Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center of The Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York. He is on the advisory board for Janssen.
 

High-definition white light endoscopy

Longstanding ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s colitis increase the risk for developing colorectal cancer. The majority of neoplastic lesions are visible endoscopically, and therefore, dye spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE) may not be necessary for all inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients undergoing a routine dysplasia surveillance colonoscopy.

Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, is medical director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center and program director of the Advanced Inflammatory Bowel Disease Fellowship at Ohio State University in Hilliard, Ohio. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.



These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

Chromoendoscopy

Chromoendoscopy is superior in both the detection and long-term management of dysplasia in IBD when compared to high-definition white-light examination. Chromoendoscopy not only enhances dysplasia detection but further improves the definition of these lesions which then facilitates endoscopic management.

James F. Marion, MD, is professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of education and outreach at The Susan and Leonard Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center of The Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York. He is on the advisory board for Janssen.
 

High-definition white light endoscopy

Longstanding ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s colitis increase the risk for developing colorectal cancer. The majority of neoplastic lesions are visible endoscopically, and therefore, dye spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE) may not be necessary for all inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients undergoing a routine dysplasia surveillance colonoscopy.

Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, is medical director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center and program director of the Advanced Inflammatory Bowel Disease Fellowship at Ohio State University in Hilliard, Ohio. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.



These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

Chromoendoscopy

Chromoendoscopy is superior in both the detection and long-term management of dysplasia in IBD when compared to high-definition white-light examination. Chromoendoscopy not only enhances dysplasia detection but further improves the definition of these lesions which then facilitates endoscopic management.

James F. Marion, MD, is professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of education and outreach at The Susan and Leonard Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center of The Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York. He is on the advisory board for Janssen.
 

High-definition white light endoscopy

Longstanding ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s colitis increase the risk for developing colorectal cancer. The majority of neoplastic lesions are visible endoscopically, and therefore, dye spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE) may not be necessary for all inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients undergoing a routine dysplasia surveillance colonoscopy.

Anita Afzali, MD, MPH, AGAF, is medical director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center and program director of the Advanced Inflammatory Bowel Disease Fellowship at Ohio State University in Hilliard, Ohio. She has no relevant conflicts of interest.



These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

Men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by the age of 40 years appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy than men who are diagnosed at an older age, Norwegian researchers report.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

In a cross-sectional study of about 10,000 people, men with young-onset T2D were 72% more likely than men aged 50 years or older to have retinopathy.

While an increased retinopathy risk was also seen in women with young-onset T2D versus older women at first, this difference was not significant after adjusting for various confounding factors.

The effect of young-onset diabetes on retinopathy seems to be gender specific, Katrina Tibballs, MD, of the department of general practice at the University of Oslo, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“In the unadjusted analysis, the odds ratio for retinopathy was substantially higher in both [young-onset] men [odds ratio, 3.0] and women [OR, 2.46], compared with those 50 or older at diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Tibballs said.

That relationship was not substantially altered after adjustment for variables such as level of education, country background, gender, and body mass index, with adjusted ORs of 2.56 and 2.55 for men and women, respectively.

However, further adjustment to include current age, duration of diabetes, and blood lipids and glycated hemoglobin levels, led to the difference no longer holding for women (OR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.89) as it did for men (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29).
 

First data in Norwegian population

Cross-sectional data on more than 10,000 people with T2D were used for the analysis. These came from the ROSA4 study, a general practice study conducted across Norway in 2014.
 

Just over 10% of the study population used in the analysis was under the age of 40 years at diagnosis of T2D; 21% were aged between 40 and 49 years, and 69% were at least 50 years old.

The mean age of those with young-onset T2D, defined as a diagnosis before the age of 40 years, was 33 years. These individuals had a longer disease duration than those in the other age groups (11.4 vs. 10.0 vs. 7.8 years).

“Looking at clinical characteristics, we say that individuals [with young-onset T2D] have a higher level of hemoglobin A1c than those with diabetes onset later in life,” Dr. Tibballs said.

“This is despite a substantially higher proportion [being] treated with insulin and fewer on lifestyle interventions alone.”

Gender differences were seen in A1c levels, with men with young-onset T2D having consistently higher levels than women, with levels increasing with diabetes duration.
 

Rise in retinopathy faster in men than in women

Dr. Tibballs reported that, not only did the prevalence of retinopathy rise faster in those of a younger age, but it also rose more quickly in men with young-onset T2D than it in their female counterparts.

“Comparing that [young-onset diabetes] and later-onset diabetes in men and women separately, we see a clearly higher prevalence of retinopathy with increasing diabetes duration for [young-onset] men,” she said.

In women, on the other hand, there was “no clear indication of a higher retinopathy prevalence in [young-onset diabetes], except in those with the longest diabetes duration.”

So, what do the results mean for practice? First, they confirm prior work showing that there is a strong association between retinopathy and age at diagnosis of T2D. Second, they suggest that this is despite intensive glucose-lowering treatment.

She speculated that men with young-onset T2D may have had a delayed diagnosis when compared with women and individuals with later onset diabetes, Dr. Tibballs said.

“This may in turn lead to delayed onset of glucose-lowering treatment, allowing for more time with high glycemic exposure and increased risk of acquiring complications, such as retinopathy at the time of diagnosis, or in the first years after,” said Dr. Tibballs.

These are cross-sectional data, “so we can’t say anything about whether this treatment is sufficient, but it is obviously not reducing HbA1c levels as much as we would like” added Dr. Tibballs, who is a primary care physician and PhD student.

The study was supported by The Norwegian Research Fund for General Practice. Dr. Tibballs had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by the age of 40 years appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy than men who are diagnosed at an older age, Norwegian researchers report.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

In a cross-sectional study of about 10,000 people, men with young-onset T2D were 72% more likely than men aged 50 years or older to have retinopathy.

While an increased retinopathy risk was also seen in women with young-onset T2D versus older women at first, this difference was not significant after adjusting for various confounding factors.

The effect of young-onset diabetes on retinopathy seems to be gender specific, Katrina Tibballs, MD, of the department of general practice at the University of Oslo, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“In the unadjusted analysis, the odds ratio for retinopathy was substantially higher in both [young-onset] men [odds ratio, 3.0] and women [OR, 2.46], compared with those 50 or older at diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Tibballs said.

That relationship was not substantially altered after adjustment for variables such as level of education, country background, gender, and body mass index, with adjusted ORs of 2.56 and 2.55 for men and women, respectively.

However, further adjustment to include current age, duration of diabetes, and blood lipids and glycated hemoglobin levels, led to the difference no longer holding for women (OR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.89) as it did for men (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29).
 

First data in Norwegian population

Cross-sectional data on more than 10,000 people with T2D were used for the analysis. These came from the ROSA4 study, a general practice study conducted across Norway in 2014.
 

Just over 10% of the study population used in the analysis was under the age of 40 years at diagnosis of T2D; 21% were aged between 40 and 49 years, and 69% were at least 50 years old.

The mean age of those with young-onset T2D, defined as a diagnosis before the age of 40 years, was 33 years. These individuals had a longer disease duration than those in the other age groups (11.4 vs. 10.0 vs. 7.8 years).

“Looking at clinical characteristics, we say that individuals [with young-onset T2D] have a higher level of hemoglobin A1c than those with diabetes onset later in life,” Dr. Tibballs said.

“This is despite a substantially higher proportion [being] treated with insulin and fewer on lifestyle interventions alone.”

Gender differences were seen in A1c levels, with men with young-onset T2D having consistently higher levels than women, with levels increasing with diabetes duration.
 

Rise in retinopathy faster in men than in women

Dr. Tibballs reported that, not only did the prevalence of retinopathy rise faster in those of a younger age, but it also rose more quickly in men with young-onset T2D than it in their female counterparts.

“Comparing that [young-onset diabetes] and later-onset diabetes in men and women separately, we see a clearly higher prevalence of retinopathy with increasing diabetes duration for [young-onset] men,” she said.

In women, on the other hand, there was “no clear indication of a higher retinopathy prevalence in [young-onset diabetes], except in those with the longest diabetes duration.”

So, what do the results mean for practice? First, they confirm prior work showing that there is a strong association between retinopathy and age at diagnosis of T2D. Second, they suggest that this is despite intensive glucose-lowering treatment.

She speculated that men with young-onset T2D may have had a delayed diagnosis when compared with women and individuals with later onset diabetes, Dr. Tibballs said.

“This may in turn lead to delayed onset of glucose-lowering treatment, allowing for more time with high glycemic exposure and increased risk of acquiring complications, such as retinopathy at the time of diagnosis, or in the first years after,” said Dr. Tibballs.

These are cross-sectional data, “so we can’t say anything about whether this treatment is sufficient, but it is obviously not reducing HbA1c levels as much as we would like” added Dr. Tibballs, who is a primary care physician and PhD student.

The study was supported by The Norwegian Research Fund for General Practice. Dr. Tibballs had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Men diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by the age of 40 years appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy than men who are diagnosed at an older age, Norwegian researchers report.

memorisz/iStock/Getty Images

In a cross-sectional study of about 10,000 people, men with young-onset T2D were 72% more likely than men aged 50 years or older to have retinopathy.

While an increased retinopathy risk was also seen in women with young-onset T2D versus older women at first, this difference was not significant after adjusting for various confounding factors.

The effect of young-onset diabetes on retinopathy seems to be gender specific, Katrina Tibballs, MD, of the department of general practice at the University of Oslo, reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“In the unadjusted analysis, the odds ratio for retinopathy was substantially higher in both [young-onset] men [odds ratio, 3.0] and women [OR, 2.46], compared with those 50 or older at diabetes diagnosis,” Dr. Tibballs said.

That relationship was not substantially altered after adjustment for variables such as level of education, country background, gender, and body mass index, with adjusted ORs of 2.56 and 2.55 for men and women, respectively.

However, further adjustment to include current age, duration of diabetes, and blood lipids and glycated hemoglobin levels, led to the difference no longer holding for women (OR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.89) as it did for men (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.29-2.29).
 

First data in Norwegian population

Cross-sectional data on more than 10,000 people with T2D were used for the analysis. These came from the ROSA4 study, a general practice study conducted across Norway in 2014.
 

Just over 10% of the study population used in the analysis was under the age of 40 years at diagnosis of T2D; 21% were aged between 40 and 49 years, and 69% were at least 50 years old.

The mean age of those with young-onset T2D, defined as a diagnosis before the age of 40 years, was 33 years. These individuals had a longer disease duration than those in the other age groups (11.4 vs. 10.0 vs. 7.8 years).

“Looking at clinical characteristics, we say that individuals [with young-onset T2D] have a higher level of hemoglobin A1c than those with diabetes onset later in life,” Dr. Tibballs said.

“This is despite a substantially higher proportion [being] treated with insulin and fewer on lifestyle interventions alone.”

Gender differences were seen in A1c levels, with men with young-onset T2D having consistently higher levels than women, with levels increasing with diabetes duration.
 

Rise in retinopathy faster in men than in women

Dr. Tibballs reported that, not only did the prevalence of retinopathy rise faster in those of a younger age, but it also rose more quickly in men with young-onset T2D than it in their female counterparts.

“Comparing that [young-onset diabetes] and later-onset diabetes in men and women separately, we see a clearly higher prevalence of retinopathy with increasing diabetes duration for [young-onset] men,” she said.

In women, on the other hand, there was “no clear indication of a higher retinopathy prevalence in [young-onset diabetes], except in those with the longest diabetes duration.”

So, what do the results mean for practice? First, they confirm prior work showing that there is a strong association between retinopathy and age at diagnosis of T2D. Second, they suggest that this is despite intensive glucose-lowering treatment.

She speculated that men with young-onset T2D may have had a delayed diagnosis when compared with women and individuals with later onset diabetes, Dr. Tibballs said.

“This may in turn lead to delayed onset of glucose-lowering treatment, allowing for more time with high glycemic exposure and increased risk of acquiring complications, such as retinopathy at the time of diagnosis, or in the first years after,” said Dr. Tibballs.

These are cross-sectional data, “so we can’t say anything about whether this treatment is sufficient, but it is obviously not reducing HbA1c levels as much as we would like” added Dr. Tibballs, who is a primary care physician and PhD student.

The study was supported by The Norwegian Research Fund for General Practice. Dr. Tibballs had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Gastroenterologists should be skilled in recognition of patients with inherited risk of colorectal neoplasia. During the session on colonic diseases, the case presentations provided tools to help clinicians identify and evaluate high-risk individuals. Fay Kastrinos, MD, presented a 49-year-old female who had more than 10 cumulative adenomas and a cecal adenocarcinoma on two colonoscopies, the first of which was performed for evaluation of rectal bleeding. Carol Burke, MD, reviewed the differential diagnosis of adenomatous polyposis (defined as >10 cumulative adenomas).

Germline syndromes include familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), and a number of rare germline syndromes. Lynch syndrome should be considered especially for carriers of pathogenic variants in MSH6 who can present with a polyposis phenotype, as well as in children with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. Finally, polyposis can be due to smoking, familial clustering, or previous abdominal radiation called therapy-associated polyposis. Polyposis without a known cause is referred to as colonic polyposis of unknown etiology (CPUE).

Dr. Kastrinos reviewed the patient’s three-generation family history of a brother and mother with “polyps” and second-degree relatives with endometrial and colon cancer. Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, presented on the role of taking a comprehensive family history, tumor tests for Lynch syndrome, selection of genetic test type, and risks, benefits, and alternatives of genetic testing. Dr. Samadder reviewed indications for germline genetic testing for colorectal neoplasia of which the patient met two criteria, namely colorectal cancer under age 50 and 10 or more cumulative adenomas.

The final section was presented by this author on multigene panel testing, in which multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This patient’s panel showed two pathogenic variants in the MUTYH gene consistent with MAP, a recessive polyposis syndrome typically with 10s-100 cumulative adenomas. The test also showed a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) which is not clinically actionable. Providers counseling patients on multigene panel testing should discuss the possibility of VUS results (especially in individuals of non-European descent), moderate penetrant genes for which management recommendations are uncertain, or unexpected findings in genes not associated with colonic neoplasia. Studies have shown that the prevalence of finding an inherited syndrome is increased at younger ages of disease onset.

Dr. Kastrinos summarized key points from the session, including hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes are not rare, red flags for inherited syndromes, include early onset colorectal neoplasia and/or numerous relatives with colorectal and other extra-colonic cancer, extended family history assessment is recommended, and genetic risk assessment and genetic testing with multigene panels is a process and should be personalized. The question and answer session was lively with discussion of cost as well as direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Sonia Kupfer, MD, AGAF, is an associate professor in the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Chicago. She has no financial conflicts of interest. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

Gastroenterologists should be skilled in recognition of patients with inherited risk of colorectal neoplasia. During the session on colonic diseases, the case presentations provided tools to help clinicians identify and evaluate high-risk individuals. Fay Kastrinos, MD, presented a 49-year-old female who had more than 10 cumulative adenomas and a cecal adenocarcinoma on two colonoscopies, the first of which was performed for evaluation of rectal bleeding. Carol Burke, MD, reviewed the differential diagnosis of adenomatous polyposis (defined as >10 cumulative adenomas).

Germline syndromes include familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), and a number of rare germline syndromes. Lynch syndrome should be considered especially for carriers of pathogenic variants in MSH6 who can present with a polyposis phenotype, as well as in children with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. Finally, polyposis can be due to smoking, familial clustering, or previous abdominal radiation called therapy-associated polyposis. Polyposis without a known cause is referred to as colonic polyposis of unknown etiology (CPUE).

Dr. Kastrinos reviewed the patient’s three-generation family history of a brother and mother with “polyps” and second-degree relatives with endometrial and colon cancer. Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, presented on the role of taking a comprehensive family history, tumor tests for Lynch syndrome, selection of genetic test type, and risks, benefits, and alternatives of genetic testing. Dr. Samadder reviewed indications for germline genetic testing for colorectal neoplasia of which the patient met two criteria, namely colorectal cancer under age 50 and 10 or more cumulative adenomas.

The final section was presented by this author on multigene panel testing, in which multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This patient’s panel showed two pathogenic variants in the MUTYH gene consistent with MAP, a recessive polyposis syndrome typically with 10s-100 cumulative adenomas. The test also showed a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) which is not clinically actionable. Providers counseling patients on multigene panel testing should discuss the possibility of VUS results (especially in individuals of non-European descent), moderate penetrant genes for which management recommendations are uncertain, or unexpected findings in genes not associated with colonic neoplasia. Studies have shown that the prevalence of finding an inherited syndrome is increased at younger ages of disease onset.

Dr. Kastrinos summarized key points from the session, including hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes are not rare, red flags for inherited syndromes, include early onset colorectal neoplasia and/or numerous relatives with colorectal and other extra-colonic cancer, extended family history assessment is recommended, and genetic risk assessment and genetic testing with multigene panels is a process and should be personalized. The question and answer session was lively with discussion of cost as well as direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Sonia Kupfer, MD, AGAF, is an associate professor in the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Chicago. She has no financial conflicts of interest. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.

Gastroenterologists should be skilled in recognition of patients with inherited risk of colorectal neoplasia. During the session on colonic diseases, the case presentations provided tools to help clinicians identify and evaluate high-risk individuals. Fay Kastrinos, MD, presented a 49-year-old female who had more than 10 cumulative adenomas and a cecal adenocarcinoma on two colonoscopies, the first of which was performed for evaluation of rectal bleeding. Carol Burke, MD, reviewed the differential diagnosis of adenomatous polyposis (defined as >10 cumulative adenomas).

Germline syndromes include familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), and a number of rare germline syndromes. Lynch syndrome should be considered especially for carriers of pathogenic variants in MSH6 who can present with a polyposis phenotype, as well as in children with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. Finally, polyposis can be due to smoking, familial clustering, or previous abdominal radiation called therapy-associated polyposis. Polyposis without a known cause is referred to as colonic polyposis of unknown etiology (CPUE).

Dr. Kastrinos reviewed the patient’s three-generation family history of a brother and mother with “polyps” and second-degree relatives with endometrial and colon cancer. Niloy Jewel Samadder, MD, presented on the role of taking a comprehensive family history, tumor tests for Lynch syndrome, selection of genetic test type, and risks, benefits, and alternatives of genetic testing. Dr. Samadder reviewed indications for germline genetic testing for colorectal neoplasia of which the patient met two criteria, namely colorectal cancer under age 50 and 10 or more cumulative adenomas.

The final section was presented by this author on multigene panel testing, in which multiple genes are sequenced simultaneously. This patient’s panel showed two pathogenic variants in the MUTYH gene consistent with MAP, a recessive polyposis syndrome typically with 10s-100 cumulative adenomas. The test also showed a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) which is not clinically actionable. Providers counseling patients on multigene panel testing should discuss the possibility of VUS results (especially in individuals of non-European descent), moderate penetrant genes for which management recommendations are uncertain, or unexpected findings in genes not associated with colonic neoplasia. Studies have shown that the prevalence of finding an inherited syndrome is increased at younger ages of disease onset.

Dr. Kastrinos summarized key points from the session, including hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes are not rare, red flags for inherited syndromes, include early onset colorectal neoplasia and/or numerous relatives with colorectal and other extra-colonic cancer, extended family history assessment is recommended, and genetic risk assessment and genetic testing with multigene panels is a process and should be personalized. The question and answer session was lively with discussion of cost as well as direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Sonia Kupfer, MD, AGAF, is an associate professor in the section of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of Chicago. She has no financial conflicts of interest. These remarks were made during one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2021.