Although malpractice “crises” come and go, liability fears persist near top of mind for most physicians.¹ Liability insurance premiums have plateaued in recent years, but remain at high levels, and the prospect of being reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) or listed on a state medical board’s website for a paid liability claim is unsettling. The high-acuity setting and the absence of longitudinal patient relationships in hospital medicine may theoretically raise malpractice risk, yet hospitalists’ liability risk remains understudied.²

The contribution by Schaffer and colleagues³ in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine is thus welcome and illuminating. The researchers examine the liability risk of hospitalists compared to that of other specialties by utilizing a large database of malpractice claims compiled from multiple insurers across a decade.³ In a field of research plagued by inadequate data, the Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) built by CRICO/RMF is a treasure. Unlike the primary national database of malpractice claims, the NPDB, the CBS contains information on claims that did not result in a payment, as well as physicians’ specialty and detailed information on the allegations, injuries, and their causes. The CBS contains almost a third of all medical liability claims made in the United States during the study period, supporting generalizability.

Schaffer and colleagues¹ found that hospitalists had a lower claims rate than physicians in emergency medicine or neurosurgery. The rate was on par with that for non-hospital general internists, even though hospitalists often care for higher-acuity patients. Although claims rates dropped over the study period for physicians in neurosurgery, emergency medicine, psychiatry, and internal medicine subspecialties, the rate for hospitalists did not change significantly. Further, the median payout on claims against hospitalists was the highest of all the specialties examined, except neurosurgery. This reflects higher injury severity in hospitalist cases: half the claims against hospitalists involved death and three-quarters were high severity.

The study is not without limitations. Due to missing data, only a fraction of the claims (8.2% to 11%) in the full dataset are used in the claims rate analysis. Regression models predicting a payment are based on a small number of payments for hospitalists (n = 363). Further, the authors advance, as a potential explanation for hospitalists’ higher liability risk, that hospitalists are disproportionately young compared to other specialists, but the dataset lacks age data. These limitations suggest caution in the authors’ overall conclusion that “the malpractice environment for hospitalists is becoming less favorable.”

Nevertheless, several important insights emerge from their analysis. The very existence of claims demonstrates that patient harm continues. The contributing factors and judgment errors found in these claims demonstrate that much of this harm is potentially preventable and a risk to patient safety. Whether or not the authors’ young-hospitalist hypothesis is ultimately proven, it is difficult to argue with more mentorship as a means to improve safety. Also, preventing or intercepting judgment errors remains a vexing challenge in medicine that undoubtedly calls for creative clinical decision support solutions. Schaffer and colleagues¹ also note that hospitalists are increasingly co-managing patients with other specialties, such as orthopedic surgery. Whether this new practice model drives hospitalist liability risk because hospitalists are practicing in areas in which they have less experience (as the authors posit) or whether hospitalists are simply more likely to be named in a suit as part of a specialty team with higher liability risk remains unknown and merits further investigation.

Ultimately, regardless of whether the liability environment is worsening for hospitalists, the need to improve our liability system is clear. There is room to improve the system on a number of metrics, including properly compensating negligently harmed patients without unduly burdening providers. The system also induces defensive medicine and has not driven safety improvements as expected. The liability environment, as a result, remains challenging not just for hospitalists, but for all patients and physicians as well.

Although malpractice “crises” come and go, liability fears persist near top of mind for most physicians.¹ Liability insurance premiums have plateaued in recent years, but remain at high levels, and the prospect of being reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) or listed on a state medical board’s website for a paid liability claim is unsettling. The high-acuity setting and the absence of longitudinal patient relationships in hospital medicine may theoretically raise malpractice risk, yet hospitalists’ liability risk remains understudied.²

The contribution by Schaffer and colleagues³ in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine is thus welcome and illuminating. The researchers examine the liability risk of hospitalists compared to that of other specialties by utilizing a large database of malpractice claims compiled from multiple insurers across a decade.³ In a field of research plagued by inadequate data, the Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) built by CRICO/RMF is a treasure. Unlike the primary national database of malpractice claims, the NPDB, the CBS contains information on claims that did not result in a payment, as well as physicians’ specialty and detailed information on the allegations, injuries, and their causes. The CBS contains almost a third of all medical liability claims made in the United States during the study period, supporting generalizability.

Schaffer and colleagues¹ found that hospitalists had a lower claims rate than physicians in emergency medicine or neurosurgery. The rate was on par with that for non-hospital general internists, even though hospitalists often care for higher-acuity patients. Although claims rates dropped over the study period for physicians in neurosurgery, emergency medicine, psychiatry, and internal medicine subspecialties, the rate for hospitalists did not change significantly. Further, the median payout on claims against hospitalists was the highest of all the specialties examined, except neurosurgery. This reflects higher injury severity in hospitalist cases: half the claims against hospitalists involved death and three-quarters were high severity.

The study is not without limitations. Due to missing data, only a fraction of the claims (8.2% to 11%) in the full dataset are used in the claims rate analysis. Regression models predicting a payment are based on a small number of payments for hospitalists (n = 363). Further, the authors advance, as a potential explanation for hospitalists’ higher liability risk, that hospitalists are disproportionately young compared to other specialists, but the dataset lacks age data. These limitations suggest caution in the authors’ overall conclusion that “the malpractice environment for hospitalists is becoming less favorable.”

Nevertheless, several important insights emerge from their analysis. The very existence of claims demonstrates that patient harm continues. The contributing factors and judgment errors found in these claims demonstrate that much of this harm is potentially preventable and a risk to patient safety. Whether or not the authors’ young-hospitalist hypothesis is ultimately proven, it is difficult to argue with more mentorship as a means to improve safety. Also, preventing or intercepting judgment errors remains a vexing challenge in medicine that undoubtedly calls for creative clinical decision support solutions. Schaffer and colleagues¹ also note that hospitalists are increasingly co-managing patients with other specialties, such as orthopedic surgery. Whether this new practice model drives hospitalist liability risk because hospitalists are practicing in areas in which they have less experience (as the authors posit) or whether hospitalists are simply more likely to be named in a suit as part of a specialty team with higher liability risk remains unknown and merits further investigation.

Ultimately, regardless of whether the liability environment is worsening for hospitalists, the need to improve our liability system is clear. There is room to improve the system on a number of metrics, including properly compensating negligently harmed patients without unduly burdening providers. The system also induces defensive medicine and has not driven safety improvements as expected. The liability environment, as a result, remains challenging not just for hospitalists, but for all patients and physicians as well.

Although malpractice “crises” come and go, liability fears persist near top of mind for most physicians.¹ Liability insurance premiums have plateaued in recent years, but remain at high levels, and the prospect of being reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) or listed on a state medical board’s website for a paid liability claim is unsettling. The high-acuity setting and the absence of longitudinal patient relationships in hospital medicine may theoretically raise malpractice risk, yet hospitalists’ liability risk remains understudied.²

The contribution by Schaffer and colleagues³ in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine is thus welcome and illuminating. The researchers examine the liability risk of hospitalists compared to that of other specialties by utilizing a large database of malpractice claims compiled from multiple insurers across a decade.³ In a field of research plagued by inadequate data, the Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) built by CRICO/RMF is a treasure. Unlike the primary national database of malpractice claims, the NPDB, the CBS contains information on claims that did not result in a payment, as well as physicians’ specialty and detailed information on the allegations, injuries, and their causes. The CBS contains almost a third of all medical liability claims made in the United States during the study period, supporting generalizability.

Schaffer and colleagues¹ found that hospitalists had a lower claims rate than physicians in emergency medicine or neurosurgery. The rate was on par with that for non-hospital general internists, even though hospitalists often care for higher-acuity patients. Although claims rates dropped over the study period for physicians in neurosurgery, emergency medicine, psychiatry, and internal medicine subspecialties, the rate for hospitalists did not change significantly. Further, the median payout on claims against hospitalists was the highest of all the specialties examined, except neurosurgery. This reflects higher injury severity in hospitalist cases: half the claims against hospitalists involved death and three-quarters were high severity.

The study is not without limitations. Due to missing data, only a fraction of the claims (8.2% to 11%) in the full dataset are used in the claims rate analysis. Regression models predicting a payment are based on a small number of payments for hospitalists (n = 363). Further, the authors advance, as a potential explanation for hospitalists’ higher liability risk, that hospitalists are disproportionately young compared to other specialists, but the dataset lacks age data. These limitations suggest caution in the authors’ overall conclusion that “the malpractice environment for hospitalists is becoming less favorable.”

Nevertheless, several important insights emerge from their analysis. The very existence of claims demonstrates that patient harm continues. The contributing factors and judgment errors found in these claims demonstrate that much of this harm is potentially preventable and a risk to patient safety. Whether or not the authors’ young-hospitalist hypothesis is ultimately proven, it is difficult to argue with more mentorship as a means to improve safety. Also, preventing or intercepting judgment errors remains a vexing challenge in medicine that undoubtedly calls for creative clinical decision support solutions. Schaffer and colleagues¹ also note that hospitalists are increasingly co-managing patients with other specialties, such as orthopedic surgery. Whether this new practice model drives hospitalist liability risk because hospitalists are practicing in areas in which they have less experience (as the authors posit) or whether hospitalists are simply more likely to be named in a suit as part of a specialty team with higher liability risk remains unknown and merits further investigation.

Ultimately, regardless of whether the liability environment is worsening for hospitalists, the need to improve our liability system is clear. There is room to improve the system on a number of metrics, including properly compensating negligently harmed patients without unduly burdening providers. The system also induces defensive medicine and has not driven safety improvements as expected. The liability environment, as a result, remains challenging not just for hospitalists, but for all patients and physicians as well.

“As we work to create light for others, we naturally light our own way.”

– Mary Anne Radmacher

Perhaps unknowingly, hospitalists establish microcultures in their everyday work. Hospitalists’ interactions with colleagues often occur in the context of shared workspaces. The nature of these seemingly minor exchanges shapes the microculture, often described as the culture shared by a small group based on location within an organization. Hospitalists have an opportunity to cultivate well-being within these microcultures through gracious and thoughtful acknowledgments of their peers. Collegial support at the micro level influences wellness at the organizational level. A larger shared culture of wellness is necessary to nurture physicians’ personal fulfillment and professional development.¹

We propose the CARE framework for cultivating well-being within the microcultures of hospital medicine shared workspaces. CARE consists of Capitalization, Active listening, Recognition, and Empathy. This framework is based on positive psychology research and inspired by lessons from The Happiness Advantage by Shawn Achor.²

Capitalization. Capitalization is defined as sharing upbeat news and receiving a positive reaction. Emotional support during good times, more so than during bad times, strengthens relationships. When a peer shares good news, show enthusiasm and counter with an active, constructive response to maximize the validation she perceives.²

For example, Alex sits at her desk and says to Kristen: “

My workshop proposal was accepted for medical education day!” “

Congratulations, Alex! Tell me more about the workshop.”

Active listening. Active listening requires concentration and observation of body language. Show engagement by maintaining an open posture, using positive facial expressions, and providing occasional cues that you’re paying attention. Paraphrasing and asking targeted questions to dive deeper demonstrates genuine interest. 

“Katie, I could use your advice. Do you have a minute?”

Katie turns to face John and smiles. “Of course. How can I help?”

“My team seems drained after a code this morning. I planned a lecture for later, but I’m not sure this is the right time.”

Katie nods. “I think you’re right, John. How have you thought about handling the situation?”

Recognition. Acts of recognition and encouragement are catalysts for boosting morale. Even brief expressions of gratitude can have a significant emotional impact. Recognition is most meaningful when delivered deliberately and with warmth.

Kevin walks into the hospitalist workroom. “Diane, congratulations on your publication! I plan to make a medication interaction review part of my discharge workflow.”

Leah turns to Diane. “Diane, that’s great news! Can you send me the link to your article?”

Empathy. Burnout is prevalent in medicine, and our fellow hospitalists deserve empathy. Showing empathy reduces stress and promotes connectedness. Sense when your colleagues are in distress and take time to share in their feelings and emotions. Draw on your own clinical experience to find common ground and convey understanding.

“I transferred another patient with COVID-19 to the ICU. I spent the last hour talking to family.”

“Ashwin, you’ve had a tough week. I know how you must feel—I had to transfer a patient yesterday. Want to take a quick walk outside?”

Hospitalists are inherently busy while on service, but these four interventions are brief, requiring only several minutes. Each small investment of your time will pay significant emotional dividends. These practices will not only enhance your colleagues’ sense of well-being, but will also bolster your happiness and productivity. A positive mindset fosters creative thinking and enhances complex problem solving. Recharging the microcultures of hospitalist workspaces with positivity will spark a larger transformation at the organizational level. That’s because positive actions are contagious.² One hospitalist’s commitment to CARE will encourage other hospitalists to adopt these behaviors, establishing a virtuous cycle that sustains an organization’s culture of wellness.

“As we work to create light for others, we naturally light our own way.”

– Mary Anne Radmacher

Perhaps unknowingly, hospitalists establish microcultures in their everyday work. Hospitalists’ interactions with colleagues often occur in the context of shared workspaces. The nature of these seemingly minor exchanges shapes the microculture, often described as the culture shared by a small group based on location within an organization. Hospitalists have an opportunity to cultivate well-being within these microcultures through gracious and thoughtful acknowledgments of their peers. Collegial support at the micro level influences wellness at the organizational level. A larger shared culture of wellness is necessary to nurture physicians’ personal fulfillment and professional development.¹

We propose the CARE framework for cultivating well-being within the microcultures of hospital medicine shared workspaces. CARE consists of Capitalization, Active listening, Recognition, and Empathy. This framework is based on positive psychology research and inspired by lessons from The Happiness Advantage by Shawn Achor.²

Capitalization. Capitalization is defined as sharing upbeat news and receiving a positive reaction. Emotional support during good times, more so than during bad times, strengthens relationships. When a peer shares good news, show enthusiasm and counter with an active, constructive response to maximize the validation she perceives.²

For example, Alex sits at her desk and says to Kristen: “

My workshop proposal was accepted for medical education day!” “

Congratulations, Alex! Tell me more about the workshop.”

Active listening. Active listening requires concentration and observation of body language. Show engagement by maintaining an open posture, using positive facial expressions, and providing occasional cues that you’re paying attention. Paraphrasing and asking targeted questions to dive deeper demonstrates genuine interest. 

“Katie, I could use your advice. Do you have a minute?”

Katie turns to face John and smiles. “Of course. How can I help?”

“My team seems drained after a code this morning. I planned a lecture for later, but I’m not sure this is the right time.”

Katie nods. “I think you’re right, John. How have you thought about handling the situation?”

Recognition. Acts of recognition and encouragement are catalysts for boosting morale. Even brief expressions of gratitude can have a significant emotional impact. Recognition is most meaningful when delivered deliberately and with warmth.

Kevin walks into the hospitalist workroom. “Diane, congratulations on your publication! I plan to make a medication interaction review part of my discharge workflow.”

Leah turns to Diane. “Diane, that’s great news! Can you send me the link to your article?”

Empathy. Burnout is prevalent in medicine, and our fellow hospitalists deserve empathy. Showing empathy reduces stress and promotes connectedness. Sense when your colleagues are in distress and take time to share in their feelings and emotions. Draw on your own clinical experience to find common ground and convey understanding.

“I transferred another patient with COVID-19 to the ICU. I spent the last hour talking to family.”

“Ashwin, you’ve had a tough week. I know how you must feel—I had to transfer a patient yesterday. Want to take a quick walk outside?”

Hospitalists are inherently busy while on service, but these four interventions are brief, requiring only several minutes. Each small investment of your time will pay significant emotional dividends. These practices will not only enhance your colleagues’ sense of well-being, but will also bolster your happiness and productivity. A positive mindset fosters creative thinking and enhances complex problem solving. Recharging the microcultures of hospitalist workspaces with positivity will spark a larger transformation at the organizational level. That’s because positive actions are contagious.² One hospitalist’s commitment to CARE will encourage other hospitalists to adopt these behaviors, establishing a virtuous cycle that sustains an organization’s culture of wellness.

“As we work to create light for others, we naturally light our own way.”

– Mary Anne Radmacher

Perhaps unknowingly, hospitalists establish microcultures in their everyday work. Hospitalists’ interactions with colleagues often occur in the context of shared workspaces. The nature of these seemingly minor exchanges shapes the microculture, often described as the culture shared by a small group based on location within an organization. Hospitalists have an opportunity to cultivate well-being within these microcultures through gracious and thoughtful acknowledgments of their peers. Collegial support at the micro level influences wellness at the organizational level. A larger shared culture of wellness is necessary to nurture physicians’ personal fulfillment and professional development.¹

We propose the CARE framework for cultivating well-being within the microcultures of hospital medicine shared workspaces. CARE consists of Capitalization, Active listening, Recognition, and Empathy. This framework is based on positive psychology research and inspired by lessons from The Happiness Advantage by Shawn Achor.²

Capitalization. Capitalization is defined as sharing upbeat news and receiving a positive reaction. Emotional support during good times, more so than during bad times, strengthens relationships. When a peer shares good news, show enthusiasm and counter with an active, constructive response to maximize the validation she perceives.²

For example, Alex sits at her desk and says to Kristen: “

My workshop proposal was accepted for medical education day!” “

Congratulations, Alex! Tell me more about the workshop.”

Active listening. Active listening requires concentration and observation of body language. Show engagement by maintaining an open posture, using positive facial expressions, and providing occasional cues that you’re paying attention. Paraphrasing and asking targeted questions to dive deeper demonstrates genuine interest. 

“Katie, I could use your advice. Do you have a minute?”

Katie turns to face John and smiles. “Of course. How can I help?”

“My team seems drained after a code this morning. I planned a lecture for later, but I’m not sure this is the right time.”

Katie nods. “I think you’re right, John. How have you thought about handling the situation?”

Recognition. Acts of recognition and encouragement are catalysts for boosting morale. Even brief expressions of gratitude can have a significant emotional impact. Recognition is most meaningful when delivered deliberately and with warmth.

Kevin walks into the hospitalist workroom. “Diane, congratulations on your publication! I plan to make a medication interaction review part of my discharge workflow.”

Leah turns to Diane. “Diane, that’s great news! Can you send me the link to your article?”

Empathy. Burnout is prevalent in medicine, and our fellow hospitalists deserve empathy. Showing empathy reduces stress and promotes connectedness. Sense when your colleagues are in distress and take time to share in their feelings and emotions. Draw on your own clinical experience to find common ground and convey understanding.

“I transferred another patient with COVID-19 to the ICU. I spent the last hour talking to family.”

“Ashwin, you’ve had a tough week. I know how you must feel—I had to transfer a patient yesterday. Want to take a quick walk outside?”

Hospitalists are inherently busy while on service, but these four interventions are brief, requiring only several minutes. Each small investment of your time will pay significant emotional dividends. These practices will not only enhance your colleagues’ sense of well-being, but will also bolster your happiness and productivity. A positive mindset fosters creative thinking and enhances complex problem solving. Recharging the microcultures of hospitalist workspaces with positivity will spark a larger transformation at the organizational level. That’s because positive actions are contagious.² One hospitalist’s commitment to CARE will encourage other hospitalists to adopt these behaviors, establishing a virtuous cycle that sustains an organization’s culture of wellness.

Young adults who use cannabis – either sporadically, daily, or those who have cannabis use disorder – have a significantly increased risk for suicidal thoughts and actions, according to U.S. national drug survey data.

The risks appear greater for women than men and remained regardless of whether the individual was depressed.

“We cannot establish that cannabis use caused increased suicidality,” Nora Volkow, MD, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), told this news organization.

“However, it is likely that these two factors influence one another bidirectionally, meaning people with suicidal thinking might be more vulnerable to cannabis use to self-medicate their distress, and cannabis use may trigger negative moods and suicidal thinking in some people,” said Dr. Volkow.

“It is also possible that these factors are not causally linked to one another at all but rather reflect the common and related risk factors underlying both suicidality and substance use. For instance, one’s genetics may put them at a higher risk for both suicide and for using marijuana,” she added.

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Marked increase in use

Cannabis use among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past 10 years, with a parallel increase in suicidality. However, the links between cannabis use and suicidality among young adults are poorly understood.

NIDA researchers sought to fill this gap. They examined data on 281,650 young men and women aged 18 to 34 years who participated in National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2008 to 2019.

Status regarding past-year cannabis use was categorized as past-year daily or near-daily use (greater than or equal to 300 days), non-daily use, and no cannabis use.

Although suicidality was associated with cannabis use, even young adults who did not use cannabis on a daily basis were more likely to have suicidal thoughts or actions than those who did not use the drug at all, the researchers found.

Among young adults without a major depressive episode, about 3% of those who did not use cannabis had suicidal ideation, compared with about 7% of non-daily cannabis users, about 9% of daily cannabis users, and 14% of those with a cannabis use disorder.

Among young adults with depression, the corresponding percentages were 35%, 44%, 53%, and 50%.

Similar trends existed for the associations between the different levels of cannabis use and suicide plan or attempt.
 

Women at greatest risk

Gender differences also emerged. Women who used cannabis at any level were more likely to have suicidal ideation or report a suicide plan or attempt than men with the same levels of cannabis use.

Among those without a major depressive episode, the prevalence of suicidal ideation for those with versus without a cannabis use disorder was around 14% versus 4.0% among women and 10% versus 3.0% among men.

Among young adults with both cannabis use disorder and major depressive episode, the prevalence of past-year suicide plan was 52% higher for women (24%) than for men (16%).

“Suicide is a leading cause of death among young adults in the United States, and the findings of this study offer important information that may help us reduce this risk,” lead author and NIDA researcher Beth Han, MD, PhD, MPH, said in a news release.

“Depression and cannabis use disorder are treatable conditions, and cannabis use can be modified. Through better understanding the associations of different risk factors for suicidality, we hope to offer new targets for prevention and intervention in individuals that we know may be at high risk. These findings also underscore the importance of tailoring interventions in a way that takes sex and gender into account,” said Dr. Han.

“Additional research is needed to better understand these complex associations, especially given the great burden of suicide on young adults,” said Dr. Volkow.
 

Gender difference ‘striking’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, said this study is “clearly of great interest; of course correlation and causality are completely distinct entities, and this study is all about correlation.

“This does not, of course, mean that cannabis use causes suicide but suggests that in individuals who use cannabis, suicidality in the broadest sense is increased in prevalence rate,” said Dr. Nemeroff, who serves as principal investigator of the Texas Child Trauma Network.

Dr. Nemeroff said “the most striking finding” was the larger effect in women than men – “striking because suicide is, in almost all cultures, higher in prevalence in men versus women.”

Dr. Nemeroff said he’d like to know more about other potential contributing factors, “which would include a history of child abuse and neglect, a major vulnerability factor for suicidality, comorbid alcohol and other substance abuse, [and] comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as posttraumatic stress disorder.”

The study was sponsored by NIDA, of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkow, Dr. Han, and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young adults who use cannabis – either sporadically, daily, or those who have cannabis use disorder – have a significantly increased risk for suicidal thoughts and actions, according to U.S. national drug survey data.

The risks appear greater for women than men and remained regardless of whether the individual was depressed.

“We cannot establish that cannabis use caused increased suicidality,” Nora Volkow, MD, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), told this news organization.

“However, it is likely that these two factors influence one another bidirectionally, meaning people with suicidal thinking might be more vulnerable to cannabis use to self-medicate their distress, and cannabis use may trigger negative moods and suicidal thinking in some people,” said Dr. Volkow.

“It is also possible that these factors are not causally linked to one another at all but rather reflect the common and related risk factors underlying both suicidality and substance use. For instance, one’s genetics may put them at a higher risk for both suicide and for using marijuana,” she added.

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Marked increase in use

Cannabis use among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past 10 years, with a parallel increase in suicidality. However, the links between cannabis use and suicidality among young adults are poorly understood.

NIDA researchers sought to fill this gap. They examined data on 281,650 young men and women aged 18 to 34 years who participated in National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2008 to 2019.

Status regarding past-year cannabis use was categorized as past-year daily or near-daily use (greater than or equal to 300 days), non-daily use, and no cannabis use.

Although suicidality was associated with cannabis use, even young adults who did not use cannabis on a daily basis were more likely to have suicidal thoughts or actions than those who did not use the drug at all, the researchers found.

Among young adults without a major depressive episode, about 3% of those who did not use cannabis had suicidal ideation, compared with about 7% of non-daily cannabis users, about 9% of daily cannabis users, and 14% of those with a cannabis use disorder.

Among young adults with depression, the corresponding percentages were 35%, 44%, 53%, and 50%.

Similar trends existed for the associations between the different levels of cannabis use and suicide plan or attempt.
 

Women at greatest risk

Gender differences also emerged. Women who used cannabis at any level were more likely to have suicidal ideation or report a suicide plan or attempt than men with the same levels of cannabis use.

Among those without a major depressive episode, the prevalence of suicidal ideation for those with versus without a cannabis use disorder was around 14% versus 4.0% among women and 10% versus 3.0% among men.

Among young adults with both cannabis use disorder and major depressive episode, the prevalence of past-year suicide plan was 52% higher for women (24%) than for men (16%).

“Suicide is a leading cause of death among young adults in the United States, and the findings of this study offer important information that may help us reduce this risk,” lead author and NIDA researcher Beth Han, MD, PhD, MPH, said in a news release.

“Depression and cannabis use disorder are treatable conditions, and cannabis use can be modified. Through better understanding the associations of different risk factors for suicidality, we hope to offer new targets for prevention and intervention in individuals that we know may be at high risk. These findings also underscore the importance of tailoring interventions in a way that takes sex and gender into account,” said Dr. Han.

“Additional research is needed to better understand these complex associations, especially given the great burden of suicide on young adults,” said Dr. Volkow.
 

Gender difference ‘striking’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, said this study is “clearly of great interest; of course correlation and causality are completely distinct entities, and this study is all about correlation.

“This does not, of course, mean that cannabis use causes suicide but suggests that in individuals who use cannabis, suicidality in the broadest sense is increased in prevalence rate,” said Dr. Nemeroff, who serves as principal investigator of the Texas Child Trauma Network.

Dr. Nemeroff said “the most striking finding” was the larger effect in women than men – “striking because suicide is, in almost all cultures, higher in prevalence in men versus women.”

Dr. Nemeroff said he’d like to know more about other potential contributing factors, “which would include a history of child abuse and neglect, a major vulnerability factor for suicidality, comorbid alcohol and other substance abuse, [and] comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as posttraumatic stress disorder.”

The study was sponsored by NIDA, of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkow, Dr. Han, and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young adults who use cannabis – either sporadically, daily, or those who have cannabis use disorder – have a significantly increased risk for suicidal thoughts and actions, according to U.S. national drug survey data.

The risks appear greater for women than men and remained regardless of whether the individual was depressed.

“We cannot establish that cannabis use caused increased suicidality,” Nora Volkow, MD, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), told this news organization.

“However, it is likely that these two factors influence one another bidirectionally, meaning people with suicidal thinking might be more vulnerable to cannabis use to self-medicate their distress, and cannabis use may trigger negative moods and suicidal thinking in some people,” said Dr. Volkow.

“It is also possible that these factors are not causally linked to one another at all but rather reflect the common and related risk factors underlying both suicidality and substance use. For instance, one’s genetics may put them at a higher risk for both suicide and for using marijuana,” she added.

The study was published online June 22 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Marked increase in use

Cannabis use among U.S. adults has increased markedly over the past 10 years, with a parallel increase in suicidality. However, the links between cannabis use and suicidality among young adults are poorly understood.

NIDA researchers sought to fill this gap. They examined data on 281,650 young men and women aged 18 to 34 years who participated in National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2008 to 2019.

Status regarding past-year cannabis use was categorized as past-year daily or near-daily use (greater than or equal to 300 days), non-daily use, and no cannabis use.

Although suicidality was associated with cannabis use, even young adults who did not use cannabis on a daily basis were more likely to have suicidal thoughts or actions than those who did not use the drug at all, the researchers found.

Among young adults without a major depressive episode, about 3% of those who did not use cannabis had suicidal ideation, compared with about 7% of non-daily cannabis users, about 9% of daily cannabis users, and 14% of those with a cannabis use disorder.

Among young adults with depression, the corresponding percentages were 35%, 44%, 53%, and 50%.

Similar trends existed for the associations between the different levels of cannabis use and suicide plan or attempt.
 

Women at greatest risk

Gender differences also emerged. Women who used cannabis at any level were more likely to have suicidal ideation or report a suicide plan or attempt than men with the same levels of cannabis use.

Among those without a major depressive episode, the prevalence of suicidal ideation for those with versus without a cannabis use disorder was around 14% versus 4.0% among women and 10% versus 3.0% among men.

Among young adults with both cannabis use disorder and major depressive episode, the prevalence of past-year suicide plan was 52% higher for women (24%) than for men (16%).

“Suicide is a leading cause of death among young adults in the United States, and the findings of this study offer important information that may help us reduce this risk,” lead author and NIDA researcher Beth Han, MD, PhD, MPH, said in a news release.

“Depression and cannabis use disorder are treatable conditions, and cannabis use can be modified. Through better understanding the associations of different risk factors for suicidality, we hope to offer new targets for prevention and intervention in individuals that we know may be at high risk. These findings also underscore the importance of tailoring interventions in a way that takes sex and gender into account,” said Dr. Han.

“Additional research is needed to better understand these complex associations, especially given the great burden of suicide on young adults,” said Dr. Volkow.
 

Gender difference ‘striking’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, said this study is “clearly of great interest; of course correlation and causality are completely distinct entities, and this study is all about correlation.

“This does not, of course, mean that cannabis use causes suicide but suggests that in individuals who use cannabis, suicidality in the broadest sense is increased in prevalence rate,” said Dr. Nemeroff, who serves as principal investigator of the Texas Child Trauma Network.

Dr. Nemeroff said “the most striking finding” was the larger effect in women than men – “striking because suicide is, in almost all cultures, higher in prevalence in men versus women.”

Dr. Nemeroff said he’d like to know more about other potential contributing factors, “which would include a history of child abuse and neglect, a major vulnerability factor for suicidality, comorbid alcohol and other substance abuse, [and] comorbid psychiatric diagnosis such as posttraumatic stress disorder.”

The study was sponsored by NIDA, of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Volkow, Dr. Han, and Dr. Nemeroff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

Dr Mark A. Socinski, executive medical director of AdventHealth Cancer Institute in Orlando, Florida, highlights studies in advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
First, Dr Socinski reports on the updated results of the CheckMate 9LA study showing continued benefit of nivolumab and ipilimumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

He also outlines an FDA pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials showing that patients with PD-L1 scores between 1% and 49% benefit most from immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with immunotherapy alone.

Dr Socinski then takes us through one of his own studies showing that immune-related adverse events are actually associated with better outcomes, and reports some sobering data from two studies suggesting that biomarker testing is lagging behind in NSCLC patients, especially among African Americans. He closes by reviewing updated results of the CodeBreak 100 trial which showed encouraging response to sotorasib among patients with G12C KRAS mutations.

--

Mark A. Socinski, MD, Executive Medical Director, AdventHealth Cancer Institute, Orlando, Florida.

Mark A. Socinski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Genentech; Novartis; Guardant; AstraZeneca; Eli Lilly and Company; Blueprint
Received research grant from: Genentech; AstraZeneca; Novartis; Spectrum; Cullinan.

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A single, simple question about sleep habits asked to people with diabetes in the UK Biobank database identified a subgroup with a nearly doubled mortality rate during almost 9 years of follow-up: those who said they usually had sleep disturbances.

The question was: Do you never, rarely, sometimes, or usually have trouble falling asleep, or waking in the middle of the night?

Adults in the UK Biobank with any form of self-reported diabetes or insulin use who answered that they usually have sleep disturbances had a significant 87% higher mortality rate than did those without diabetes who said they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, in a fully adjusted model with an average follow-up of 8.9 years, Kristen L. Knutson, PhD, and coauthors reported in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Mortality was 11% higher in respondents who reported frequent sleep disturbances but had no diabetes than in those without frequent sleep disturbances. Furthermore, those with diabetes but without frequent sleep disturbances had a 67% higher mortality rate, compared with those without diabetes. Both differences were statistically significant in a model that adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, sleep duration, body mass index, and other covariates.

The findings suggest that diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances act in a roughly additive way to raise mortality risk, said Dr. Knutson, an epidemiologist and neurologist who specializes in sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

She suggested that, based on these findings, clinicians should consider annually asking patients with diabetes this key question about the frequency of their sleep disturbances. They should then follow up with patients who report usual disturbances by referring them to a sleep clinic to test for a sleep disorders such as insomnia or sleep apnea. Sleep apnea especially is “particularly common in patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Knutson noted in an interview.
 

A need to ‘spread awareness’ about diabetes and disturbed sleep.

The study run by Dr. Knutson and associates “is one of the largest population-based studies” to examine the relationship between sleep disturbances, diabetes, and mortality, commented Sirimon Reutrakul, MD, an endocrinologist and diabetes specialist at the University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago.

“This study highlights the detrimental effects of sleep disturbances in people with or without diabetes, and adds to the effects of sleep disturbances such as insomnia symptoms. People with diabetes often have sleep disturbances. Obstructive sleep apnea is very common in people with diabetes, and insomnia symptoms could be present in people with obstructive sleep apnea or it could be a separate problem,” Dr. Reutrakul said in an interview. Sleep disturbances can arise from direct effects of diabetes, such as nocturia, worry about glucose levels, pain, depressive symptoms, and anxiety, or can result from comorbidities that interfere with sleep.

“It is prudent to ask patients with diabetes about sleep patterns,” said Dr. Reutrakul, and she endorsed the specific question that Dr. Knutson recommended asking patients. Other aspects of sleep quality that could be helpful for a diagnosis include sleep duration, sleep timing, and snoring. “Some physicians ask these questions, but we need to spread awareness,” she added.

Prior to referring patients to a sleep clinic, Dr. Reutrakul suggested that clinicians could also assess possible triggers such as inadequate glucose control, pain, and anxiety, and they could also recommend good sleep hygiene strategies such as what’s recommended by the Sleep Foundation.
 

Sleep disturbances ‘highly prevalent’ among U.K. adults.

The UK Biobank enrolled just over 500,000 people aged 37-73 years during 2006-2010, and 487,728 of these people had data available that allowed their inclusion in the analysis. That group averaged about 57 years of age, 54% were women, 94% were White, and their average body mass index was 27-28 kg/m2.

More than a quarter of these people reported having “usual” sleep disturbances, showing that sleep disturbances are “highly prevalent” among U.K. residents, noted the authors. Just under a quarter of the subjects reported they never or rarely had sleep disturbances, and the remaining half of subjects said they “sometimes” had sleep disturbances.

In addition, 69% reported neither diabetes nor frequent sleep disturbances, 26% had frequent sleep disturbances but no diabetes, 3% had diabetes but not frequent sleep disturbances, and 2% had both diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances.

During the average 8.9-year follow-up, 19,177 people died from any cause (4%), and 3,874 of these deaths involved cardiovascular disease causes. Despite the significant association of diabetes and frequent sleep disturbances with an increased rate of all-cause mortality, the same combination showed no significant link with cardiovascular mortality in the study’s full-adjusted model. This may be because “frequent sleep disturbances can lead to a variety of causes of death,” Dr. Knutson suggested.

The information collected by the UK Biobank did not allow the researchers to distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The findings “suggest that regardless of the cause of sleep disturbance, reporting sleep disturbances on a frequent basis is an important signal of elevated risk of mortality. Such symptoms should therefore be investigated further by physicians, particularly in patients who have also been diagnosed with diabetes,” wrote Dr. Knutson and coauthors. “This is the first study to examine the effect of the combination of insomnia and diabetes on mortality risk.”

But Dr. Knutson highlighted that “sleep problems are important for everyone, not just people with diabetes.

Neither Dr. Knutson and coauthors nor Dr. Reutrakul had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Dr. Lisa Carey, a breast cancer specialist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at the latest data in metastatic breast cancer presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

First, Dr. Carey reviews an updated analysis from the PALOMA-3 trial of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. This report showed that the observed survival benefit with the combination is maintained out to 6 years.

Next, she describes another updated survival analysis, this time from the MONALEESA-3 trial, which assessed fulvestrant plus another CDK4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. Again, the combination was associated with a survival benefit of almost 5 years, as well as a delay in subsequent chemotherapy.

Dr. Carey then reviews the Chinese sysucc-002 trial of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy added to trastuzumab in HR+/HER2+ disease. With noninferior outcomes and lower toxicity, trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy could become the preferred option and allow women to avoid chemotherapy.

She next turns to a subanalysis of the ASCENT trial, which examined sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated triple-negative disease. Even in the second-line metastatic setting, the drug showed a survival benefit.

Dr. Carey concludes by discussing a study that gathered patients’ views on treatment-related adverse effects, finding that over 90% would be willing to discuss alternative dosing options to improve their quality of life.

--

Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor, Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Deputy Director, Clinical Sciences, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Institution received research funding from: AbbVie; Immunomedics; NanoString Technologies; Novartis; Seattle Genetics; Syndax; Veracyte

Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem cell-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme.

Other uncompensated relationships through institution: Aptitude Health; AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo; Exact Sciences; G1 Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; Sanofi.

Dr. Lisa Carey, a breast cancer specialist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at the latest data in metastatic breast cancer presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

First, Dr. Carey reviews an updated analysis from the PALOMA-3 trial of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. This report showed that the observed survival benefit with the combination is maintained out to 6 years.

Next, she describes another updated survival analysis, this time from the MONALEESA-3 trial, which assessed fulvestrant plus another CDK4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. Again, the combination was associated with a survival benefit of almost 5 years, as well as a delay in subsequent chemotherapy.

Dr. Carey then reviews the Chinese sysucc-002 trial of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy added to trastuzumab in HR+/HER2+ disease. With noninferior outcomes and lower toxicity, trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy could become the preferred option and allow women to avoid chemotherapy.

She next turns to a subanalysis of the ASCENT trial, which examined sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated triple-negative disease. Even in the second-line metastatic setting, the drug showed a survival benefit.

Dr. Carey concludes by discussing a study that gathered patients’ views on treatment-related adverse effects, finding that over 90% would be willing to discuss alternative dosing options to improve their quality of life.

--

Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor, Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Deputy Director, Clinical Sciences, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Institution received research funding from: AbbVie; Immunomedics; NanoString Technologies; Novartis; Seattle Genetics; Syndax; Veracyte

Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem cell-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme.

Other uncompensated relationships through institution: Aptitude Health; AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo; Exact Sciences; G1 Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; Sanofi.

Dr. Lisa Carey, a breast cancer specialist from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, looks at the latest data in metastatic breast cancer presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

First, Dr. Carey reviews an updated analysis from the PALOMA-3 trial of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib plus fulvestrant in women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. This report showed that the observed survival benefit with the combination is maintained out to 6 years.

Next, she describes another updated survival analysis, this time from the MONALEESA-3 trial, which assessed fulvestrant plus another CDK4/6 inhibitor, ribociclib, in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced disease. Again, the combination was associated with a survival benefit of almost 5 years, as well as a delay in subsequent chemotherapy.

Dr. Carey then reviews the Chinese sysucc-002 trial of endocrine therapy or chemotherapy added to trastuzumab in HR+/HER2+ disease. With noninferior outcomes and lower toxicity, trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy could become the preferred option and allow women to avoid chemotherapy.

She next turns to a subanalysis of the ASCENT trial, which examined sacituzumab govitecan in previously treated triple-negative disease. Even in the second-line metastatic setting, the drug showed a survival benefit.

Dr. Carey concludes by discussing a study that gathered patients’ views on treatment-related adverse effects, finding that over 90% would be willing to discuss alternative dosing options to improve their quality of life.

--

Jacobs Preyer Distinguished Professor, Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Deputy Director, Clinical Sciences, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Institution received research funding from: AbbVie; Immunomedics; NanoString Technologies; Novartis; Seattle Genetics; Syndax; Veracyte

Royalty-sharing agreement, investorship interest in licensed IP to startup company, Falcon Therapeutics, that is designing neural stem cell-based therapy for glioblastoma multiforme.

Other uncompensated relationships through institution: Aptitude Health; AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo; Exact Sciences; G1 Therapeutics; Genentech/Roche; GlaxoSmithKline; Novartis; Sanofi.

Dr. Harold Burstein, breast cancer specialist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses practice-changing research and advances in early-stage breast cancer from the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

He first reports on OlympiA, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant olaparib after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and high-risk HR+/HER2- disease. The results showed a substantial invasive and distant disease-free survival benefit and underscored the need for genetic testing for BRCA mutations in patients with early-stage disease.

Next, he discusses two studies in triple-negative breast cancer. EA1131 was a phase 3 postoperative trial of platinum-based chemotherapy vs capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The negative results suggested that additional chemotherapy does not improve outcomes.

In contrast, adding durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved outcomes in GeparNuevo, calling into question whether the drug is needed in the later adjuvant setting.

Next, Dr. Burstein looks at the ADAPT-HR-/HER2+ trial of de-escalated neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab, which suggested that patients with early pathologic complete responses may be suitable for further de-escalation.

Finally, he reports on a retrospective analysis of more than 330,000 US individuals that puts the well-known financial toxicity associated with cancer care into numbers and shows the impact on people’s lives beyond their diagnosis.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Harold Burstein, breast cancer specialist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses practice-changing research and advances in early-stage breast cancer from the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

He first reports on OlympiA, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant olaparib after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and high-risk HR+/HER2- disease. The results showed a substantial invasive and distant disease-free survival benefit and underscored the need for genetic testing for BRCA mutations in patients with early-stage disease.

Next, he discusses two studies in triple-negative breast cancer. EA1131 was a phase 3 postoperative trial of platinum-based chemotherapy vs capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The negative results suggested that additional chemotherapy does not improve outcomes.

In contrast, adding durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved outcomes in GeparNuevo, calling into question whether the drug is needed in the later adjuvant setting.

Next, Dr. Burstein looks at the ADAPT-HR-/HER2+ trial of de-escalated neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab, which suggested that patients with early pathologic complete responses may be suitable for further de-escalation.

Finally, he reports on a retrospective analysis of more than 330,000 US individuals that puts the well-known financial toxicity associated with cancer care into numbers and shows the impact on people’s lives beyond their diagnosis.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Harold Burstein, breast cancer specialist from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, discusses practice-changing research and advances in early-stage breast cancer from the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting.

He first reports on OlympiA, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant olaparib after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and high-risk HR+/HER2- disease. The results showed a substantial invasive and distant disease-free survival benefit and underscored the need for genetic testing for BRCA mutations in patients with early-stage disease.

Next, he discusses two studies in triple-negative breast cancer. EA1131 was a phase 3 postoperative trial of platinum-based chemotherapy vs capecitabine in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The negative results suggested that additional chemotherapy does not improve outcomes.

In contrast, adding durvalumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved outcomes in GeparNuevo, calling into question whether the drug is needed in the later adjuvant setting.

Next, Dr. Burstein looks at the ADAPT-HR-/HER2+ trial of de-escalated neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab, which suggested that patients with early pathologic complete responses may be suitable for further de-escalation.

Finally, he reports on a retrospective analysis of more than 330,000 US individuals that puts the well-known financial toxicity associated with cancer care into numbers and shows the impact on people’s lives beyond their diagnosis.

--

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Insulet’s investigational Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system improves glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes aged as young as 2 years, new data suggest.

The Omnipod 5 system combines a tubing-free insulin-filled delivery “Pod” with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor and an algorithm built into the Pod connecting the two devices via a smartphone app to semiautomate insulin delivery. It is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration. The company expects to launch it in limited release during the second half of 2021. 

Results from a pivotal trial of the system in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Follow-up data at 6 months were also presented for another pivotal study of 112 children aged 6-13.9 years and 129 adults aged 14-70 years. Those primary 3-month data were reported earlier this year at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting and subsequently published online June 7, 2021, in Diabetes Care. Another study presented at ADA looked at quality of life in children using Omnipod 5 and their caregivers. 

If approved by the FDA, the Omnipod 5 would be the third commercially available automated insulin delivery system – also called hybrid closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems – in the United States. It would be the second approved for children as young as 2 years of age and the first to deliver insulin subcutaneously without tubing.
 

‘No-tubing’ feature will be a draw for parents of young children

Asked to comment, pediatric endocrinologist Laura M. Jacobsen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview: “I think the big advantage for the Omnipod 5 is that [if approved it will be] the only tubeless automated insulin delivery system in the U.S.”

“The automated delivery systems have just been wonderful for helping patients achieve time in range, especially overnight. And the fact that this goes down to such a young age where that can be very difficult is wonderful.”

Another difference between the Omnipod 5 and other systems is the ability to adjust glucose targets (from 110 to 150 mg/dL), although newer versions of the currently available hybrid closed-loop systems are expected to include that feature as well. “They’re all slightly different in the way the algorithms work, but I think the end result is similar,” Dr. Jacobsen said.

But, she said, the no-tubing feature might be particularly helpful for some very active young kids. “A lot of small kids do use the tubed pumps, and you can make it work with a lot of kids, but with some kids it just won’t ... the tubing gets caught. I think this really helps parents make the step. A lot of them don’t want to try the tubing whereas they see the Omnipod and might feel a little more confidence to try a pump.”

Overall, said Dr. Jacobsen, who has no financial disclosures with Insulet, Dexcom, or any of their competitors, “I think any addition to the technology field to improve quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes is important and people need choices.”
 

Pivotal data show benefit in ‘difficult-to-manage’ preschool children

Pivotal 3-month data for the Omnipod 5 in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented on June 26 by pediatric endocrinologist Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“As a pediatric endocrinologist, I can attest to the difficulty of managing this age group, due to grazing eating patterns and erratic physical activity. Oftentimes, care providers may fear hypoglycemia as these youth can not verbalize or self-treat lows,” she remarked.

A total of 80 children were enrolled at 10 institutions across the United Sates. There was a single 14-day standard therapy phase (baseline), followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery during which the children’s eating and exercise were unrestricted.

At 3 months, average hemoglobin A1c had fallen from 7.4% at baseline to 6.9%, a significant difference (P < .05). The proportions achieving the target A1c of less than 7% were 54% at 3 months versus 31% at baseline. The reduction was even greater among the 25 with baseline A1c of 8% or greater, although it was significant even among the 55 who started with a lower A1c (–1.06 vs. –0.31 percentage points; both P < .05). 

Time in range rose from 57.2% at baseline to 68.1% at 3 months (P < .05).

“These youngsters are spending an average of 2.6 more hours/day in range,” Dr. Sherr commented, noting that the difference became apparent shortly after study start and was maintained during the 3 months.

Dr. Sherr noted that this 10.9% improvement in time in range with Omnipod 5 was similar to improvements in the previously reported pivotal study of older children and adults. Data from that study showed improvement in time in range from a gain of 15.6% for the 6 to 13.9 year olds to 8.0% for those aged 26-49 years. Interestingly, improvements in time in range were seen even in the oldest group, aged 50-70, who increased from an already high baseline of 69.9% to 79.1% with Omnipod 5 after 3 months.

In her current study, in the youngest age group, the improvement in time in range was achieved primarily by a reduction of time above range, from 2.4 fewer hours/day above 180 mg/dL, while time below 70 mg/dL was reduced by 4 minutes/day. Overnight time in range improved by 1.4 hours/night, with most of the improvements in reduction of hyperglycemia.

The proportions meeting the combined goals of less than 4% time below range and greater than 60% time in range rose from 29% to 65%.

There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during the 3-month study phase.

Another important related metric, sleep quality for parents/caregivers, also improved. The percentage reporting overall sleep quality of “very good” or “fairly good” increased from 65% at baseline to 90% with Omnipod 5, while “very bad” sleep quality fell from 8.8% to 0%.

All 80 patients completed the study and elected to continue in a 12-month extension phase.
 

Ongoing benefit seen in older children and adults

In a late-breaking poster presented on June 25, Anders L. Carlson, MD, medical director at the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, presented more follow-up data to the previously reported 3-month pivotal study, including 108 older children and 109 adults from the original study.

A1c remained lower after 6 months than at baseline for both children and adults (P < .001). In the children, A1c levels weren’t significantly different at the end of 6 versus 3 months, while in the adults there was an additional 0.1 percentage point decrease (P < .01).

There was one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and no severe hypoglycemic episodes in the 3-month extension. “Sustained reduction of A1c indicates the potential long-term benefit of the Omnipod 5 System,” Dr. Carlson and colleagues concluded.
 

Reduced diabetes distress, don’t forget parents’ quality of life

Meanwhile, psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, presented quality of life data at the meeting for 83 children aged 6-11.9 years and 42 teens aged 12-17.9 years using the Omnipod 5 from the larger study population and their parents.

Significant improvements were seen for both the youth and their caregivers in the Problem Areas in Diabetes score, a measure of diabetes-related emotional distress. Changes were less dramatic on the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale, although improvements were significant for the caregivers of the younger children.

“We know this is a group that is really worried about hypoglycemia across a lot of situations, not just sleep but also school and outside of the home. So, to increase their confidence to this extent I think is a pretty important finding,” Dr. Hood commented.

There were nonsignificant trends in improvement across groups on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, but overall sleep quality did significantly improve among parents of the younger children. And on the World Health Organization–5 quality of life survey, significant improvements again were seen among the caregivers of young children.

“Reduced diabetes distress and improved quality of life are key benefits of using the Omnipod 5 [automated insulin delivery] system that are complementary to the glycemic benefits achieved,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Jacobsen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherr has reported being an adviser for, consultant for, and/or grant recipient from Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Sanofi, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Hood has reported being a consultant for Cecelia Health, Havas, and Cercacor.

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

Insulet’s investigational Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system improves glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes aged as young as 2 years, new data suggest.

The Omnipod 5 system combines a tubing-free insulin-filled delivery “Pod” with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor and an algorithm built into the Pod connecting the two devices via a smartphone app to semiautomate insulin delivery. It is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration. The company expects to launch it in limited release during the second half of 2021. 

Results from a pivotal trial of the system in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Follow-up data at 6 months were also presented for another pivotal study of 112 children aged 6-13.9 years and 129 adults aged 14-70 years. Those primary 3-month data were reported earlier this year at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting and subsequently published online June 7, 2021, in Diabetes Care. Another study presented at ADA looked at quality of life in children using Omnipod 5 and their caregivers. 

If approved by the FDA, the Omnipod 5 would be the third commercially available automated insulin delivery system – also called hybrid closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems – in the United States. It would be the second approved for children as young as 2 years of age and the first to deliver insulin subcutaneously without tubing.
 

‘No-tubing’ feature will be a draw for parents of young children

Asked to comment, pediatric endocrinologist Laura M. Jacobsen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview: “I think the big advantage for the Omnipod 5 is that [if approved it will be] the only tubeless automated insulin delivery system in the U.S.”

“The automated delivery systems have just been wonderful for helping patients achieve time in range, especially overnight. And the fact that this goes down to such a young age where that can be very difficult is wonderful.”

Another difference between the Omnipod 5 and other systems is the ability to adjust glucose targets (from 110 to 150 mg/dL), although newer versions of the currently available hybrid closed-loop systems are expected to include that feature as well. “They’re all slightly different in the way the algorithms work, but I think the end result is similar,” Dr. Jacobsen said.

But, she said, the no-tubing feature might be particularly helpful for some very active young kids. “A lot of small kids do use the tubed pumps, and you can make it work with a lot of kids, but with some kids it just won’t ... the tubing gets caught. I think this really helps parents make the step. A lot of them don’t want to try the tubing whereas they see the Omnipod and might feel a little more confidence to try a pump.”

Overall, said Dr. Jacobsen, who has no financial disclosures with Insulet, Dexcom, or any of their competitors, “I think any addition to the technology field to improve quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes is important and people need choices.”
 

Pivotal data show benefit in ‘difficult-to-manage’ preschool children

Pivotal 3-month data for the Omnipod 5 in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented on June 26 by pediatric endocrinologist Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“As a pediatric endocrinologist, I can attest to the difficulty of managing this age group, due to grazing eating patterns and erratic physical activity. Oftentimes, care providers may fear hypoglycemia as these youth can not verbalize or self-treat lows,” she remarked.

A total of 80 children were enrolled at 10 institutions across the United Sates. There was a single 14-day standard therapy phase (baseline), followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery during which the children’s eating and exercise were unrestricted.

At 3 months, average hemoglobin A1c had fallen from 7.4% at baseline to 6.9%, a significant difference (P < .05). The proportions achieving the target A1c of less than 7% were 54% at 3 months versus 31% at baseline. The reduction was even greater among the 25 with baseline A1c of 8% or greater, although it was significant even among the 55 who started with a lower A1c (–1.06 vs. –0.31 percentage points; both P < .05). 

Time in range rose from 57.2% at baseline to 68.1% at 3 months (P < .05).

“These youngsters are spending an average of 2.6 more hours/day in range,” Dr. Sherr commented, noting that the difference became apparent shortly after study start and was maintained during the 3 months.

Dr. Sherr noted that this 10.9% improvement in time in range with Omnipod 5 was similar to improvements in the previously reported pivotal study of older children and adults. Data from that study showed improvement in time in range from a gain of 15.6% for the 6 to 13.9 year olds to 8.0% for those aged 26-49 years. Interestingly, improvements in time in range were seen even in the oldest group, aged 50-70, who increased from an already high baseline of 69.9% to 79.1% with Omnipod 5 after 3 months.

In her current study, in the youngest age group, the improvement in time in range was achieved primarily by a reduction of time above range, from 2.4 fewer hours/day above 180 mg/dL, while time below 70 mg/dL was reduced by 4 minutes/day. Overnight time in range improved by 1.4 hours/night, with most of the improvements in reduction of hyperglycemia.

The proportions meeting the combined goals of less than 4% time below range and greater than 60% time in range rose from 29% to 65%.

There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during the 3-month study phase.

Another important related metric, sleep quality for parents/caregivers, also improved. The percentage reporting overall sleep quality of “very good” or “fairly good” increased from 65% at baseline to 90% with Omnipod 5, while “very bad” sleep quality fell from 8.8% to 0%.

All 80 patients completed the study and elected to continue in a 12-month extension phase.
 

Ongoing benefit seen in older children and adults

In a late-breaking poster presented on June 25, Anders L. Carlson, MD, medical director at the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, presented more follow-up data to the previously reported 3-month pivotal study, including 108 older children and 109 adults from the original study.

A1c remained lower after 6 months than at baseline for both children and adults (P < .001). In the children, A1c levels weren’t significantly different at the end of 6 versus 3 months, while in the adults there was an additional 0.1 percentage point decrease (P < .01).

There was one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and no severe hypoglycemic episodes in the 3-month extension. “Sustained reduction of A1c indicates the potential long-term benefit of the Omnipod 5 System,” Dr. Carlson and colleagues concluded.
 

Reduced diabetes distress, don’t forget parents’ quality of life

Meanwhile, psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, presented quality of life data at the meeting for 83 children aged 6-11.9 years and 42 teens aged 12-17.9 years using the Omnipod 5 from the larger study population and their parents.

Significant improvements were seen for both the youth and their caregivers in the Problem Areas in Diabetes score, a measure of diabetes-related emotional distress. Changes were less dramatic on the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale, although improvements were significant for the caregivers of the younger children.

“We know this is a group that is really worried about hypoglycemia across a lot of situations, not just sleep but also school and outside of the home. So, to increase their confidence to this extent I think is a pretty important finding,” Dr. Hood commented.

There were nonsignificant trends in improvement across groups on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, but overall sleep quality did significantly improve among parents of the younger children. And on the World Health Organization–5 quality of life survey, significant improvements again were seen among the caregivers of young children.

“Reduced diabetes distress and improved quality of life are key benefits of using the Omnipod 5 [automated insulin delivery] system that are complementary to the glycemic benefits achieved,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Jacobsen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherr has reported being an adviser for, consultant for, and/or grant recipient from Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Sanofi, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Hood has reported being a consultant for Cecelia Health, Havas, and Cercacor.

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

Insulet’s investigational Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system improves glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes aged as young as 2 years, new data suggest.

The Omnipod 5 system combines a tubing-free insulin-filled delivery “Pod” with the Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor and an algorithm built into the Pod connecting the two devices via a smartphone app to semiautomate insulin delivery. It is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration. The company expects to launch it in limited release during the second half of 2021. 

Results from a pivotal trial of the system in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented during the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Follow-up data at 6 months were also presented for another pivotal study of 112 children aged 6-13.9 years and 129 adults aged 14-70 years. Those primary 3-month data were reported earlier this year at the Endocrine Society’s annual meeting and subsequently published online June 7, 2021, in Diabetes Care. Another study presented at ADA looked at quality of life in children using Omnipod 5 and their caregivers. 

If approved by the FDA, the Omnipod 5 would be the third commercially available automated insulin delivery system – also called hybrid closed-loop or artificial pancreas systems – in the United States. It would be the second approved for children as young as 2 years of age and the first to deliver insulin subcutaneously without tubing.
 

‘No-tubing’ feature will be a draw for parents of young children

Asked to comment, pediatric endocrinologist Laura M. Jacobsen, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, said in an interview: “I think the big advantage for the Omnipod 5 is that [if approved it will be] the only tubeless automated insulin delivery system in the U.S.”

“The automated delivery systems have just been wonderful for helping patients achieve time in range, especially overnight. And the fact that this goes down to such a young age where that can be very difficult is wonderful.”

Another difference between the Omnipod 5 and other systems is the ability to adjust glucose targets (from 110 to 150 mg/dL), although newer versions of the currently available hybrid closed-loop systems are expected to include that feature as well. “They’re all slightly different in the way the algorithms work, but I think the end result is similar,” Dr. Jacobsen said.

But, she said, the no-tubing feature might be particularly helpful for some very active young kids. “A lot of small kids do use the tubed pumps, and you can make it work with a lot of kids, but with some kids it just won’t ... the tubing gets caught. I think this really helps parents make the step. A lot of them don’t want to try the tubing whereas they see the Omnipod and might feel a little more confidence to try a pump.”

Overall, said Dr. Jacobsen, who has no financial disclosures with Insulet, Dexcom, or any of their competitors, “I think any addition to the technology field to improve quality of life for people with type 1 diabetes is important and people need choices.”
 

Pivotal data show benefit in ‘difficult-to-manage’ preschool children

Pivotal 3-month data for the Omnipod 5 in children aged 2-5.9 years with type 1 diabetes were presented on June 26 by pediatric endocrinologist Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“As a pediatric endocrinologist, I can attest to the difficulty of managing this age group, due to grazing eating patterns and erratic physical activity. Oftentimes, care providers may fear hypoglycemia as these youth can not verbalize or self-treat lows,” she remarked.

A total of 80 children were enrolled at 10 institutions across the United Sates. There was a single 14-day standard therapy phase (baseline), followed by 3 months of automated insulin delivery during which the children’s eating and exercise were unrestricted.

At 3 months, average hemoglobin A1c had fallen from 7.4% at baseline to 6.9%, a significant difference (P < .05). The proportions achieving the target A1c of less than 7% were 54% at 3 months versus 31% at baseline. The reduction was even greater among the 25 with baseline A1c of 8% or greater, although it was significant even among the 55 who started with a lower A1c (–1.06 vs. –0.31 percentage points; both P < .05). 

Time in range rose from 57.2% at baseline to 68.1% at 3 months (P < .05).

“These youngsters are spending an average of 2.6 more hours/day in range,” Dr. Sherr commented, noting that the difference became apparent shortly after study start and was maintained during the 3 months.

Dr. Sherr noted that this 10.9% improvement in time in range with Omnipod 5 was similar to improvements in the previously reported pivotal study of older children and adults. Data from that study showed improvement in time in range from a gain of 15.6% for the 6 to 13.9 year olds to 8.0% for those aged 26-49 years. Interestingly, improvements in time in range were seen even in the oldest group, aged 50-70, who increased from an already high baseline of 69.9% to 79.1% with Omnipod 5 after 3 months.

In her current study, in the youngest age group, the improvement in time in range was achieved primarily by a reduction of time above range, from 2.4 fewer hours/day above 180 mg/dL, while time below 70 mg/dL was reduced by 4 minutes/day. Overnight time in range improved by 1.4 hours/night, with most of the improvements in reduction of hyperglycemia.

The proportions meeting the combined goals of less than 4% time below range and greater than 60% time in range rose from 29% to 65%.

There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis during the 3-month study phase.

Another important related metric, sleep quality for parents/caregivers, also improved. The percentage reporting overall sleep quality of “very good” or “fairly good” increased from 65% at baseline to 90% with Omnipod 5, while “very bad” sleep quality fell from 8.8% to 0%.

All 80 patients completed the study and elected to continue in a 12-month extension phase.
 

Ongoing benefit seen in older children and adults

In a late-breaking poster presented on June 25, Anders L. Carlson, MD, medical director at the International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, presented more follow-up data to the previously reported 3-month pivotal study, including 108 older children and 109 adults from the original study.

A1c remained lower after 6 months than at baseline for both children and adults (P < .001). In the children, A1c levels weren’t significantly different at the end of 6 versus 3 months, while in the adults there was an additional 0.1 percentage point decrease (P < .01).

There was one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and no severe hypoglycemic episodes in the 3-month extension. “Sustained reduction of A1c indicates the potential long-term benefit of the Omnipod 5 System,” Dr. Carlson and colleagues concluded.
 

Reduced diabetes distress, don’t forget parents’ quality of life

Meanwhile, psychologist Korey K. Hood, PhD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, presented quality of life data at the meeting for 83 children aged 6-11.9 years and 42 teens aged 12-17.9 years using the Omnipod 5 from the larger study population and their parents.

Significant improvements were seen for both the youth and their caregivers in the Problem Areas in Diabetes score, a measure of diabetes-related emotional distress. Changes were less dramatic on the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale, although improvements were significant for the caregivers of the younger children.

“We know this is a group that is really worried about hypoglycemia across a lot of situations, not just sleep but also school and outside of the home. So, to increase their confidence to this extent I think is a pretty important finding,” Dr. Hood commented.

There were nonsignificant trends in improvement across groups on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, but overall sleep quality did significantly improve among parents of the younger children. And on the World Health Organization–5 quality of life survey, significant improvements again were seen among the caregivers of young children.

“Reduced diabetes distress and improved quality of life are key benefits of using the Omnipod 5 [automated insulin delivery] system that are complementary to the glycemic benefits achieved,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Jacobsen has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherr has reported being an adviser for, consultant for, and/or grant recipient from Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Sanofi, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Hood has reported being a consultant for Cecelia Health, Havas, and Cercacor.

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

For racial or ethnic minority youths with type 1 diabetes, participating in an interventional program improves access to care, new research shows.

Youth categorized as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) had significantly improved outpatient attendance during and after participating in Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH), a systems intervention for children with chronic health conditions and their families.

By comparison, no improvements in care access were observed among BIPOC children who were not able to access the program because of insurance or other reasons, David V. Wagner, PhD, Associate Professor and NICH research director at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The findings demonstrate a need for intensive, home-based services that aim to correct health inequities, said Dr. Wagner, who presented the findings along with Winniebhelle Cadiz, a scholar in the BUILD EXITO undergraduate research training program at Portland (Ore.) State University.

The NICH program hinges on trained interventionists who visit families at home, attend clinic visits, and work with schools and other contacts to help solve problems that keep children from following medical instructions, according to a program description.

“Families report having somebody by their side to help them navigate the system, address the transportation difficulties experienced, and help them and build that relationship with their health care provider seems to be hugely influential in terms of helping them navigate and access care,” Dr. Wagner said in a presentation of the study.
 

A NICH for youths with chronic health conditions

The NICH program differs from some other programs that have been developed in an attempt to improve health outcomes among youths in the community, according to Dr. Wagner.

“Many of the programs that exist out there are often piloted on, and seemingly built for, those who have more resources,” he said in his presentation. “Those who are in greatest need often have difficulty accessing and responding to the services.”

NICH doesn’t take the place of existing services, but is “an addition to the continuum of care” for youths and families who are struggling because of lack of resources or marginalization in the health care system, Dr. Wagner said.

While NICH is not specific to any one chronic health condition, several previous investigations have specifically looked at the impact of the NICH program on access to care in youths with type 1 diabetes.

Youths participating in the program for a year had fewer ED visits, including fewer visits with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), as well as fewer and shorter admissions as compared with the year prior to participating in the program, Dr. Wagner said.

In another study, youths had fewer admissions for diabetes or DKA and less frequent pediatric ICU contact during the NICH program, as compared with before the program.

Another study showed that, while NICH had no impact overall on access to care among youths with type 1 diabetes, BIPOC youths had an improvement in the mean number of outpatient visits as compared with preprogram levels. However, because none of those studies included a control group, Dr. Wagner said, it remained unclear whether this systems intervention might improve outpatient access among youths with type 1 diabetes as compared with those who did not participate.
 

Intervention linked to increased BIPOC care access

The latest study includes 144 youths with type 1 diabetes referred for the program. The mean age was 13.7 years, 58% were female, and 81% were non-Hispanic White. While 51 youths were able to participate in NICH, the remaining 93 were not served by the program because of insurance denial or nonresponse, according to investigators.

While participation in the program made no difference in access to care overall, results of this study suggest NICH reduced access disparities among BIPOC youths, the investigators said.

Those BIPOC youth, 28 in total, had significantly worse access to care prior to referral. However, BIPOC youth participation in NICH was associated with improved attendance at endocrinology appointments and outpatient attendance overall.

A mean change of 1.9 more appointments per year was seen among BIPOC youth who participated in NICH, compared with a mean decrease of 0.5 appointments per year among BIPOC youth not served by the program (P = .03), according to the study abstract.

Prior to NICH participation, outpatient attendance among BIPOC youths was about 2.5 visits per year, data presented by the investigators show.
 

Systemic changes needed

This study is representative of systemic changes that are needed to improve access to quality care for BIPOC youth, according Cynthia E. Muñoz, PhD, MPH, ADA’s president of health care and education.

“We know that there are increased risks for poor health outcomes for these children and youths, and we know that there is a risk for mental health and psychosocial challenges for youth from these communities,” said Dr. Muñoz, a bilingual licensed psychologist and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

In his presentation, Dr. Wagner said lumping racial and ethnic minority participants under a single BIPOC header probably wasn’t ideal because of the diversity and differences among racial and ethnic minorities. However, it was necessary in this particular study because of limited sample size.

Dr. Wagner and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to the research, which was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

For racial or ethnic minority youths with type 1 diabetes, participating in an interventional program improves access to care, new research shows.

Youth categorized as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) had significantly improved outpatient attendance during and after participating in Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH), a systems intervention for children with chronic health conditions and their families.

By comparison, no improvements in care access were observed among BIPOC children who were not able to access the program because of insurance or other reasons, David V. Wagner, PhD, Associate Professor and NICH research director at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The findings demonstrate a need for intensive, home-based services that aim to correct health inequities, said Dr. Wagner, who presented the findings along with Winniebhelle Cadiz, a scholar in the BUILD EXITO undergraduate research training program at Portland (Ore.) State University.

The NICH program hinges on trained interventionists who visit families at home, attend clinic visits, and work with schools and other contacts to help solve problems that keep children from following medical instructions, according to a program description.

“Families report having somebody by their side to help them navigate the system, address the transportation difficulties experienced, and help them and build that relationship with their health care provider seems to be hugely influential in terms of helping them navigate and access care,” Dr. Wagner said in a presentation of the study.
 

A NICH for youths with chronic health conditions

The NICH program differs from some other programs that have been developed in an attempt to improve health outcomes among youths in the community, according to Dr. Wagner.

“Many of the programs that exist out there are often piloted on, and seemingly built for, those who have more resources,” he said in his presentation. “Those who are in greatest need often have difficulty accessing and responding to the services.”

NICH doesn’t take the place of existing services, but is “an addition to the continuum of care” for youths and families who are struggling because of lack of resources or marginalization in the health care system, Dr. Wagner said.

While NICH is not specific to any one chronic health condition, several previous investigations have specifically looked at the impact of the NICH program on access to care in youths with type 1 diabetes.

Youths participating in the program for a year had fewer ED visits, including fewer visits with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), as well as fewer and shorter admissions as compared with the year prior to participating in the program, Dr. Wagner said.

In another study, youths had fewer admissions for diabetes or DKA and less frequent pediatric ICU contact during the NICH program, as compared with before the program.

Another study showed that, while NICH had no impact overall on access to care among youths with type 1 diabetes, BIPOC youths had an improvement in the mean number of outpatient visits as compared with preprogram levels. However, because none of those studies included a control group, Dr. Wagner said, it remained unclear whether this systems intervention might improve outpatient access among youths with type 1 diabetes as compared with those who did not participate.
 

Intervention linked to increased BIPOC care access

The latest study includes 144 youths with type 1 diabetes referred for the program. The mean age was 13.7 years, 58% were female, and 81% were non-Hispanic White. While 51 youths were able to participate in NICH, the remaining 93 were not served by the program because of insurance denial or nonresponse, according to investigators.

While participation in the program made no difference in access to care overall, results of this study suggest NICH reduced access disparities among BIPOC youths, the investigators said.

Those BIPOC youth, 28 in total, had significantly worse access to care prior to referral. However, BIPOC youth participation in NICH was associated with improved attendance at endocrinology appointments and outpatient attendance overall.

A mean change of 1.9 more appointments per year was seen among BIPOC youth who participated in NICH, compared with a mean decrease of 0.5 appointments per year among BIPOC youth not served by the program (P = .03), according to the study abstract.

Prior to NICH participation, outpatient attendance among BIPOC youths was about 2.5 visits per year, data presented by the investigators show.
 

Systemic changes needed

This study is representative of systemic changes that are needed to improve access to quality care for BIPOC youth, according Cynthia E. Muñoz, PhD, MPH, ADA’s president of health care and education.

“We know that there are increased risks for poor health outcomes for these children and youths, and we know that there is a risk for mental health and psychosocial challenges for youth from these communities,” said Dr. Muñoz, a bilingual licensed psychologist and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

In his presentation, Dr. Wagner said lumping racial and ethnic minority participants under a single BIPOC header probably wasn’t ideal because of the diversity and differences among racial and ethnic minorities. However, it was necessary in this particular study because of limited sample size.

Dr. Wagner and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to the research, which was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

For racial or ethnic minority youths with type 1 diabetes, participating in an interventional program improves access to care, new research shows.

Youth categorized as Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) had significantly improved outpatient attendance during and after participating in Novel Interventions in Children’s Healthcare (NICH), a systems intervention for children with chronic health conditions and their families.

By comparison, no improvements in care access were observed among BIPOC children who were not able to access the program because of insurance or other reasons, David V. Wagner, PhD, Associate Professor and NICH research director at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The findings demonstrate a need for intensive, home-based services that aim to correct health inequities, said Dr. Wagner, who presented the findings along with Winniebhelle Cadiz, a scholar in the BUILD EXITO undergraduate research training program at Portland (Ore.) State University.

The NICH program hinges on trained interventionists who visit families at home, attend clinic visits, and work with schools and other contacts to help solve problems that keep children from following medical instructions, according to a program description.

“Families report having somebody by their side to help them navigate the system, address the transportation difficulties experienced, and help them and build that relationship with their health care provider seems to be hugely influential in terms of helping them navigate and access care,” Dr. Wagner said in a presentation of the study.
 

A NICH for youths with chronic health conditions

The NICH program differs from some other programs that have been developed in an attempt to improve health outcomes among youths in the community, according to Dr. Wagner.

“Many of the programs that exist out there are often piloted on, and seemingly built for, those who have more resources,” he said in his presentation. “Those who are in greatest need often have difficulty accessing and responding to the services.”

NICH doesn’t take the place of existing services, but is “an addition to the continuum of care” for youths and families who are struggling because of lack of resources or marginalization in the health care system, Dr. Wagner said.

While NICH is not specific to any one chronic health condition, several previous investigations have specifically looked at the impact of the NICH program on access to care in youths with type 1 diabetes.

Youths participating in the program for a year had fewer ED visits, including fewer visits with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), as well as fewer and shorter admissions as compared with the year prior to participating in the program, Dr. Wagner said.

In another study, youths had fewer admissions for diabetes or DKA and less frequent pediatric ICU contact during the NICH program, as compared with before the program.

Another study showed that, while NICH had no impact overall on access to care among youths with type 1 diabetes, BIPOC youths had an improvement in the mean number of outpatient visits as compared with preprogram levels. However, because none of those studies included a control group, Dr. Wagner said, it remained unclear whether this systems intervention might improve outpatient access among youths with type 1 diabetes as compared with those who did not participate.
 

Intervention linked to increased BIPOC care access

The latest study includes 144 youths with type 1 diabetes referred for the program. The mean age was 13.7 years, 58% were female, and 81% were non-Hispanic White. While 51 youths were able to participate in NICH, the remaining 93 were not served by the program because of insurance denial or nonresponse, according to investigators.

While participation in the program made no difference in access to care overall, results of this study suggest NICH reduced access disparities among BIPOC youths, the investigators said.

Those BIPOC youth, 28 in total, had significantly worse access to care prior to referral. However, BIPOC youth participation in NICH was associated with improved attendance at endocrinology appointments and outpatient attendance overall.

A mean change of 1.9 more appointments per year was seen among BIPOC youth who participated in NICH, compared with a mean decrease of 0.5 appointments per year among BIPOC youth not served by the program (P = .03), according to the study abstract.

Prior to NICH participation, outpatient attendance among BIPOC youths was about 2.5 visits per year, data presented by the investigators show.
 

Systemic changes needed

This study is representative of systemic changes that are needed to improve access to quality care for BIPOC youth, according Cynthia E. Muñoz, PhD, MPH, ADA’s president of health care and education.

“We know that there are increased risks for poor health outcomes for these children and youths, and we know that there is a risk for mental health and psychosocial challenges for youth from these communities,” said Dr. Muñoz, a bilingual licensed psychologist and assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

In his presentation, Dr. Wagner said lumping racial and ethnic minority participants under a single BIPOC header probably wasn’t ideal because of the diversity and differences among racial and ethnic minorities. However, it was necessary in this particular study because of limited sample size.

Dr. Wagner and coauthors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to the research, which was supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.

The risk of amputations in persons with type 1 diabetes in Sweden has decreased over time, suggesting an improvement in the course of disease for these individuals, according to a national registry analysis.

Balkonsky/Thinkstock

The incidence of any amputation trended downward from 2011 to 2019, Sara Hallström, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Levels of hemoglobin A1c have also trended downward over time in Sweden among those with type 1 diabetes, while renal function has remained stable among patients who did not undergo amputations, Dr. Hallström said in a virtual presentation.

“Observing stable renal function and decreasing levels of [hemoglobin] A1c, along with decreasing incidence of amputation, indicates a shift in the prognosis of persons with type 1 diabetes,” she said.
 

Drilling down on amputation risk in type 1 diabetes

Lower-extremity amputation is a major source of disability and distress in people with diabetes, and also poses a significant financial burden for the health care system, according to Dr. Hallström of Sahlgrenska University Hospital and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden).

“Limb loss due to amputation is not seldom a final outcome of diabetic foot ulcers,” she said in the presentation.

Most studies of amputation incidence and risk factors have grouped patients with different types of diabetes, though a few recent studies have singled out type 1 diabetes.

Among these is a 2019 study indicating a 40-fold higher risk of amputation among individuals with type 1 diabetes, compared with the general population, based on analysis of Swedish National Diabetes Register data from 1998 to 2013.
 

Trends over time

In the present study, Dr. Hallström and coinvestigators queried that same Swedish registry and identified 46,008 individuals with type 1 diabetes from 1998 to 2019. The mean age was 32.5 years and 55% were male. Overall, 1,519 of these individuals (3.3%) underwent amputation.

The incidence of any amputation fluctuated from 1998 to 2011, followed by a “decreasing trend over time” from 2011 to 2019, Dr. Hallström said.

The incidence of amputation per 1,000 patient-years was 2.84 in the earliest time period of 1998-2001, decreasing to 1.64 in 2017-2019.

Levels of A1c decreased over time, starting at 2012, both in participants with and without amputations, Dr. Hallström said. Renal function over that period remained stable in persons without amputation, and showed a decreasing trend in persons with amputation.

Compared with individuals with no amputations, those undergoing amputation were older (50 years vs. 32 years), had a longer duration of diabetes (34.9 years vs. 16.5 years), and had higher mean A1c, Dr. Hellström said. The amputee group also included a higher proportion of smokers, at 19.4% versus 14.0%, data show.

Risk factors for amputation included renal dysfunction, hyperglycemia, older age, smoking, hypertension, and cardiovascular comorbidities, according to the researcher.
 

U.S. amputations on the rise overall

While authors say results of this study point to a potentially improved prognosis for individuals with type 1 diabetes in Sweden, Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief scientific and medical officer of the ADA, said amputation rates remains “concerning” based on U.S. data focused largely on type 2 diabetes.

“The amputation rate is unfortunately rising,” he said. “Sadly, this continues to be an issue.”

Significant health disparities persist, he added, with Black Americans having two- to threefold higher rates of amputations.

To help reduce amputation rates, clinicians should be asking patient about claudication and using simple screening techniques such as inspecting patient’s feet. “The big deal here is preventing ulcer formation, because once the ulcer forms, it often doesn’t heal, and it’s a downward spiral,” he said.

In addition, recent research suggests seeking a second opinion may help: “Many of those amputations could be avoided, in part because people aren’t aware of some of the treatments that can open up the arteries and reestablish blood flow,” he added.

Dr. Hallström reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor on the study provided disclosures related to Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly Diabetes, and Novo Nordisk.