Type 2 Diabetes ICYMI

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

BARCELONA – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist semaglutide (Ozempic) produced greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin and body weight than the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana) in second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin and lifestyle modifications, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The year-long SUSTAIN (Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) 8 trial comparing semaglutide and canagliflozin is one of the few head-to-head comparisons of the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor antagonist (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor classes of drugs.

Findings showed overall changes in HbA_{1c level} from baseline to week 52 of –1.5 percentage points with semaglutide and –1.0 percentage point with canagliflozin, and changes in body weight during the same time of –5.3 kg and –4.2 kg, respectively. The estimated treatment differences were –0.49 percentage points for HbA_1c (P less than .001) and –1.06 kg for body weight (P less than .0029).

A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving semaglutide also achieved HbA_1c targets at 52 weeks, compared with those receiving canagliflozin: 66.1% versus 45.1%, respectively, achieved the American Diabetes Association’s target of less than 7%, and 52.8% versus 23.6% (P less than .0001) reached the lower target of 6.5% or lower, as set by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the semaglutide arm achieved 10% or more weight loss by the end of the study (22.3% vs. 8.9% in the canagliflozin arm; P less than .0001), with a trend for 5% or greater weight loss favoring semaglutide (51.1% vs. 46.6%, P = .21). A post hoc analysis also showed that patients treated with semaglutide could achieve a weight loss of 15% or more (6.8% vs. 0.9% for canagliflozin, P = .0001).

“SUSTAIN 8 provides clinically relevant information regarding the head-to-head comparison of these two very commonly used glucose-lowering classes [of drugs] as second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes,” lead study author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, said. The findings support the use of semaglutide as an alternative to canagliflozin when treatment intensification after metformin is needed, Dr. Lingvay and coauthors concluded in an article published simultaneously in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587[19]30311-0).

Dr. Lingvay of the University of Texas in Dallas observed that both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as second-line treatment after metformin and lifestyle modifications, particularly when there is a need to minimize the risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, and there is established cardiovascular disease. Despite their wide endorsement, however, there has really been only one other head-to-head trial that evaluated the two drug classes – the PIONEER 2 study, which compared oral semaglutide and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance). Another trial, DURATION-8, compared the GLP-1 RA exenatide (Byetta) or the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) with an exenatide-dapagliflozin combination, but it did not directly compare the two drug classes.

SUSTAIN 8 was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial that compared once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1.0 mg and daily oral canagliflozin 300 mg as add-on treatments to metformin in 788 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Participants had to have a starting HbA_1c of between 7.0% and 10.0%, to be on a stable dose of metformin, and to have an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m³ or higher.

Of the 394 patients randomized to semaglutide, 83.3% completed the study treatment and 15.7% discontinued prematurely, most often because of adverse events (9.7%). Of the remaining 394 patients randomized to canagliflozin therapy, 87.1% completed treatment and 12.9% discontinued prematurely, again mostly for adverse events (5.1%).

Overall the rate of any adverse events (76.0% vs. 71.8%) or serious adverse events (4.6% vs. 5.3%) were similar between the semaglutide and canagliflozin groups. As expected, more gastrointestinal side effects were seen in patients treated with semaglutide than in those treated with canagliflozin (46.9% vs. 27.9%), and there were more infections in the canagliflozin group (29.1% vs. 34.5%). Hypoglycemic episodes were “very rare in this population,” Dr. Lingvay reported. Rates of severe or confirmed hypoglycemia were 1.5% and 1.3% for the respective arms.

Other findings of note were improved fasting blood lipids – with greater changes in total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides seen with semaglutide than canagliflozin. Systolic blood pressure dropped in both groups, with a greater change in the canagliflozin than semaglutide group (–5.5 mm Hg vs. –3.5 mm Hg; P = .0452).

In a substudy of SUSTAIN 8 (n = 178), which was reported separately at the meeting, both semaglutide and canagliflozin reduced total fat mass as assessed with whole-body, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The changes in total fat mass from baseline to week 52 were a respective –3.4 kg and –2.6, or 1.4% and 1.2%. Total lean mass changed by a respective –2.3 kg and –1.5 kg (1.2% and 1.1%), and visceral fat mass by –0.2 kg and –0.1 kg (–0.9% and 0.4%). There was no statistical significance between the groups. A post hoc analysis did show, however, that a greater drop in waist circumference might be achieved with semaglutide than with canagliflozin (–4.0 vs. –2.9 cm [–3.9% vs. –2.5%], P = .02).

“Importantly, neither treatment was associated with deleterious body composition changes, such as gains in fat mass or reductions in the total lean mass,” said Rory McCrimmon, MBChB, professor of experimental diabetes and metabolism at the University of Dundee, Scotland, when presenting the substudy findings.

“These findings are consistent with results from other body composition studies with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 [inhibitors],”Dr. McCrimmon said, adding that “the positive effects on total fat loss and visceral fat reduction highlight the role of semaglutide and canagliflozin as relevant treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes.”

Novo Nordisk funded the study. Dr. Lingvay has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk; research grants from her institution; and grants, personal fees, or both, from other companies not related to the study. Dr. McCrimmon has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk and two other companies.
 

SOURCES: Lingvay I et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30311-0; McCrimmon RJ et al. EASD 2019, Abstract 54.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide (Rybelsus) tablets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults who have not met their hemoglobin A_1c goal. It is the first glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) analogue to be approved in pill form in the United States.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval was based on results from the PIONEER trials, a series of 10 studies that assessed semaglutide against sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide in a total of 9,543 patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who received semaglutide had reduced hemoglobin A_1c levels as well as reduced body weight.

The most common adverse events reported during the PIONEER trials were nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, decreased appetite, vomiting, and constipation. The rate of adverse events were similar across trials.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists are effective medications for people with type 2 diabetes but have been underutilized, in part because until now, they have been available only as an injectable treatment. The availability of an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist represents a significant development, and primary care providers, specialists, and patients alike may now be more receptive to the use of a GLP-1 therapy to help them achieve their blood sugar goals,” said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and PIONEER clinical trial researcher.

Semaglutide is approved for once-daily use, at doses of 7 mg and 14 mg. Find the full press release on the Novo Nordisk website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide (Rybelsus) tablets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults who have not met their hemoglobin A_1c goal. It is the first glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) analogue to be approved in pill form in the United States.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval was based on results from the PIONEER trials, a series of 10 studies that assessed semaglutide against sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide in a total of 9,543 patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who received semaglutide had reduced hemoglobin A_1c levels as well as reduced body weight.

The most common adverse events reported during the PIONEER trials were nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, decreased appetite, vomiting, and constipation. The rate of adverse events were similar across trials.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists are effective medications for people with type 2 diabetes but have been underutilized, in part because until now, they have been available only as an injectable treatment. The availability of an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist represents a significant development, and primary care providers, specialists, and patients alike may now be more receptive to the use of a GLP-1 therapy to help them achieve their blood sugar goals,” said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and PIONEER clinical trial researcher.

Semaglutide is approved for once-daily use, at doses of 7 mg and 14 mg. Find the full press release on the Novo Nordisk website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide (Rybelsus) tablets for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults who have not met their hemoglobin A_1c goal. It is the first glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) analogue to be approved in pill form in the United States.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The approval was based on results from the PIONEER trials, a series of 10 studies that assessed semaglutide against sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide in a total of 9,543 patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients who received semaglutide had reduced hemoglobin A_1c levels as well as reduced body weight.

The most common adverse events reported during the PIONEER trials were nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, decreased appetite, vomiting, and constipation. The rate of adverse events were similar across trials.

“GLP-1 receptor agonists are effective medications for people with type 2 diabetes but have been underutilized, in part because until now, they have been available only as an injectable treatment. The availability of an oral GLP-1 receptor agonist represents a significant development, and primary care providers, specialists, and patients alike may now be more receptive to the use of a GLP-1 therapy to help them achieve their blood sugar goals,” said Vanita R. Aroda, MD, director of diabetes clinical research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and PIONEER clinical trial researcher.

Semaglutide is approved for once-daily use, at doses of 7 mg and 14 mg. Find the full press release on the Novo Nordisk website.

[email protected]

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

BARCELONA – Upfront use of a dual combination of vildagliptin (Galvus) and metformin was associated with better and more durable glycemic control than metformin alone in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, according to findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Fewer patients treated with the combination than with metformin monotherapy experienced “treatment failure” (43.6% vs. 62.1%, respectively) during the initial study period. The time-to-treatment failure, which was defined as an hemoglobin A_1c of at least 7% (53 mmol/L) or higher on two occasions 3 months apart, was estimated to be beyond the study’s duration, at 61·9 months, for the combination and a median of 36.1 months in the monotherapy group.

Moreover, there was a significant (P less than .0001) 49% reduction in the relative risk for the time-to-initial-treatment failure in the early combination treatment group, compared with the monotherapy group, during the 5-year study period. The time-to-second-treatment failure was also longer in patients who received initial combination therapy (hazard ratio, 0.74; P less than .0001).

These results of the VERIFY (Vildagliptin Efficacy in Combination With Metformin for Early Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) study, which were published simultaneously in the Lancet, provide the first real evidence to support the use of combination therapy rather than the current standard of metformin alone in the initial treatment of type 2 diabetes.

VERIFY was a phase 4, randomized, parallel-group study designed to compare the durability of glycemic control achieved with a combination of vildagliptin plus metformin or metformin alone in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

At a press briefing, three members of the VERITY steering committee explained the rationale, design, results, and implications of the study.

EASD president David R. Matthews, DPhil, FRCP, who is emeritus professor at the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Oxford (England), observed that the study aimed to answer three important questions: Do patients with type 2 diabetes benefit from having combination treatment from the start of their pharmacologic management, and if so, is this more beneficial than a step-up approach, and ultimately, “does it really matter?”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A typical cohort of patients was included, said Michael Stumvoll, MD, of the University Hospital Leipzig (Germany). Patients had to be aged between 18 and 70 years, have a body mass index of 22-40 kg/m², and an hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5%-7.5%. This “rather narrow range” was decided “on purpose to really fulfill the idea of having newly diagnosed [type 2 diabetes]”, Dr. Stumvoll noted. In addition, patients had to have adequate renal function, have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the past 2 years, and be drug naive or have received no more than 4 weeks of metformin.

In all, 2,001 patients from 254 centers in 34 countries were included, with 998 randomized to initial treatment with vildagliptin and metformin and 1,003 to receive metformin alone after an initial run-in phase during which the dose of metformin was up-titrated from 500 to 1,500 mg/day. The study ran for 5 years, with treatment intensified if there was a loss of glycemic control at the discretion of the study investigators – first vildagliptin was added to patients taking metformin monotherapy, then insulin, if needed.

There were no safety concerns: A similar percentage of patients in the early combination and initial monotherapy arms experienced an adverse event (83.5% vs. 83.2%, respectively), a serious adverse event (16.6% vs. 18.3%), a drug-related adverse event (15.9% vs. 14.3%), a severe adverse event (10.5% vs. 10.6%), and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment (4.1% vs. 5.3%) or death (13 vs. 9 patients). There was no difference in the change in body weight, and rates of hypoglycemia were 1.3% and 0.9%, respectively.

Adjudication and an independent data-monitoring committee were set up after cardiovascular events occurred in a few patients, although this was not a cardiovascular outcomes trials, Dr. Matthews stressed. There were fewer absolute cumulative adjudicated events in the early combination arm, compared with the initial monotherapy arm (30 vs. 44, respectively), and the time to the first adjudicated macrovascular event favored early combination over initial monotherapy (2.4% vs. 3.3%; HR, 0.71).

“There is a big caveat here,” said Dr. Matthews, “these are very small numbers and wide confidence intervals and the P value is .194.” Although “it is not a significant finding, and it was never intended to be a significant finding,” it gives “an indication that we absolutely should be looking at this.”

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Stefano Del Prato, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy), noted that “there has been a lot of discussion around initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes,” and although there was a realization that multiple treatment might be necessary, there was no evidence for that. The results of the VERIFY trial, however, now provide some of the proof that this approach may be of benefit. Patients “benefit twice as much” with the combination therapy as they do with the monotherapy, Dr. Del Prato said. “There are twice as many patients retained under control with an early combination, compared with the monotherapy.” That means no longer “running after the patient losing control” he said, but “being proactive” and with a very low risk of hypoglycemia. The clinical implication is that there is now evidence for combination therapy as an initial approach for managing type 2 diabetes.

Novartis funded the study. Dr. Matthews has served on advisory boards or as a consultant for, and has given lectures for, Novartis and numerous other companies not related to the study. He is currently the president of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Dr. Stumvoll has received speaker's honoraria and consulting fees from Novartis and other companies. Dr. Del Prato serves or has served on advisory boards and speakers bureaus for, and received research support from, Novartis and numerous other companies.

SOURCE: Matthews DR et al. Lancet. 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(19)32131-2.

This article was updated on 9/19/2019.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted dapagliflozin (Farxiga) a Fast Track designation for the reduction of cardiovascular death risk or disease progression in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The decision is based on results from two phase 3 trials – DAPA-HF and DELIVER – that assessed dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively.

Dapagliflozin, an oral, once-daily sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, was first approved as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy for the improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It was also granted Fast Track designation in August 2019 as a therapy for chronic renal disease, both to slow progression of renal failure and to prevent cardiovascular and renal death.

“Heart failure affects approximately 64 million people worldwide, and about half will die within 5 years of diagnosis,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development, said in the AstraZeneca press release. “This Fast Track designation for Farxiga brings us closer to fulfilling our ambition to help prevent, treat and cure heart failure, and we look forward to working with the FDA to explore Farxiga as a potential new treatment option for heart failure patients.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted dapagliflozin (Farxiga) a Fast Track designation for the reduction of cardiovascular death risk or disease progression in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The decision is based on results from two phase 3 trials – DAPA-HF and DELIVER – that assessed dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively.

Dapagliflozin, an oral, once-daily sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, was first approved as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy for the improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It was also granted Fast Track designation in August 2019 as a therapy for chronic renal disease, both to slow progression of renal failure and to prevent cardiovascular and renal death.

“Heart failure affects approximately 64 million people worldwide, and about half will die within 5 years of diagnosis,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development, said in the AstraZeneca press release. “This Fast Track designation for Farxiga brings us closer to fulfilling our ambition to help prevent, treat and cure heart failure, and we look forward to working with the FDA to explore Farxiga as a potential new treatment option for heart failure patients.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted dapagliflozin (Farxiga) a Fast Track designation for the reduction of cardiovascular death risk or disease progression in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

The decision is based on results from two phase 3 trials – DAPA-HF and DELIVER – that assessed dapagliflozin in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively.

Dapagliflozin, an oral, once-daily sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, was first approved as monotherapy and as part of combination therapy for the improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. It was also granted Fast Track designation in August 2019 as a therapy for chronic renal disease, both to slow progression of renal failure and to prevent cardiovascular and renal death.

“Heart failure affects approximately 64 million people worldwide, and about half will die within 5 years of diagnosis,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development, said in the AstraZeneca press release. “This Fast Track designation for Farxiga brings us closer to fulfilling our ambition to help prevent, treat and cure heart failure, and we look forward to working with the FDA to explore Farxiga as a potential new treatment option for heart failure patients.”

[email protected]

The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued new guidance on the combined usage of dapagliflozin and insulin for treating patients with type 1 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin alone.

In a review of clinical trials, NICE found that dapagliflozin plus insulin conferred small benefits in hemoglobin A_1c, weight loss, and quality of life, compared with insulin alone. These benefits translated to a reduced risk of long-term complications over the lifetime of the patient.

In the new NICE guideline, dual treatment with dapagliflozin and insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes and a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² is recommended only when they are receiving insulin doses of more than 0.5 units/kg per day; have undergone an evidence-based, quality-assured education program; and are supervised by a physician specializing in endocrinology and diabetes.

Hemoglobin A_1c levels should be assessed after 6 months and at regular intervals after that; if glycemic control is not improved, dapagliflozin should be stopped, as there is an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Find the full technology appraisal guidance on the NICE website.

[email protected]

The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued new guidance on the combined usage of dapagliflozin and insulin for treating patients with type 1 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin alone.

In a review of clinical trials, NICE found that dapagliflozin plus insulin conferred small benefits in hemoglobin A_1c, weight loss, and quality of life, compared with insulin alone. These benefits translated to a reduced risk of long-term complications over the lifetime of the patient.

In the new NICE guideline, dual treatment with dapagliflozin and insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes and a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² is recommended only when they are receiving insulin doses of more than 0.5 units/kg per day; have undergone an evidence-based, quality-assured education program; and are supervised by a physician specializing in endocrinology and diabetes.

Hemoglobin A_1c levels should be assessed after 6 months and at regular intervals after that; if glycemic control is not improved, dapagliflozin should be stopped, as there is an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Find the full technology appraisal guidance on the NICE website.

[email protected]

The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued new guidance on the combined usage of dapagliflozin and insulin for treating patients with type 1 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin alone.

In a review of clinical trials, NICE found that dapagliflozin plus insulin conferred small benefits in hemoglobin A_1c, weight loss, and quality of life, compared with insulin alone. These benefits translated to a reduced risk of long-term complications over the lifetime of the patient.

In the new NICE guideline, dual treatment with dapagliflozin and insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes and a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² is recommended only when they are receiving insulin doses of more than 0.5 units/kg per day; have undergone an evidence-based, quality-assured education program; and are supervised by a physician specializing in endocrinology and diabetes.

Hemoglobin A_1c levels should be assessed after 6 months and at regular intervals after that; if glycemic control is not improved, dapagliflozin should be stopped, as there is an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Find the full technology appraisal guidance on the NICE website.

[email protected]

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Almost a century after its discovery, insulin remains a life-saving yet costly medication: In the past 15 years, prices have risen more than 500%.¹ Patients may ask you why the insulin you prescribe is so expensive, and the complex process for determining drug costs makes it difficult to answer. But the bottom line is, patients need their insulin—and they want it without breaking the bank.

Thankfully, there are several strategies for reducing the cost of insulin. First and foremost, patients must be advised that not taking their prescribed insulin, or taking less insulin than prescribed, is not a safe alternative. An individualized cost-benefit analysis between patient and provider can help to determine the best option for each patient. After working in endocrinology for 5 years, I have learned the following 10 ways to help patients whose financial situations limit their access to insulin.

1 Try older insulins, including mixed insulin 70/30 or 50/50, insulin NPH, or regular insulin. Because the beneficial effects may not be as long lasting with these as with newer insulins on the market, your patient may need to test glucose levels more frequently. Also, insulin NPH and any mixed insulins are suspensions, not solutions, so patients will need to gently roll older insulins prior to use. Those in pen form may also have a shorter shelf life.

2 Switch to a syringe and vial. Although dosing can be less precise, this could be a viable option for patients with good vision and dexterity. This method helps patients save in 3 ways: (1) the insulin is less expensive; (2) syringes generally cost less (about $30 for 100) than pen needle tips (about $50 for 100); and (3) vials of NPH are longer-lasting suspensions that are stable for about 28 days once opened, compared to 14 days for pens.^2-4

3 Switch from a 30- to a 90-day supply of refills. This helps to lower copays. For example, a mail-order program (eg, Express Scripts) that ships from a warehouse typically offers lower pricing than a brick-and-mortar pharmacy with greater overhead. Many of these programs provide 2-pharmacist verification for accuracy and free home delivery of medications at a 10% discount, as well as 24-hour pharmacist access.⁵ The ease of obtaining prescriptions by this method also can help with medication adherence.

4 Patient assistance programs (PAPs) offered by insulin manufacturers can help lower costs for patients who find it difficult to afford their medication. Information on these programs is available on the respective company’s websites, usually in multiple languages (although some are limited to English and Spanish). Patients applying for a PAP must provide a proof of income and adhere to the program’s specific criteria. Renewal is typically required each year.^6-8

5 Copay cards are available to many patients with private insurance and may help make insulin more affordable. Patients may be able to receive a $25 monthly supply of insulin for up to 1 year (specific terms vary). Maximum contributions and contributions toward deductibles also vary by program, so patients need to familiarize themselves with what their particular copay card allows. Generally, copay cards are not a sustainable long-term solution; for one thing, they expire, and for another, emphasis should be placed on affordable medications rather than affording expensive medications.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Continue to: 6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare...

6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare can help lower the costs of prescription medications.⁹ A database of pharmaceutical PAPs is available on the Medicare website.¹⁰ Some PAPs may help patients on Medicare pay through the $5,100 coverage gap or “donut hole”—a term referring to a gap in prescription drug coverage once patients have met their prescription limit (all Medicare part D plans have a donut hole).^11,12 Patients and providers will need to read the fine print when applying for an external PAP, because some have a monthly or one-time start-up fee for processing the paperwork (and note, there is often paperwork for the relief program in addition to the PAP paperwork through the pharmaceutical company).

7 A Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is available in many states; check medicare.gov to see if your state is eligible. For patients 55 and older on Medicare or Medicaid who do not opt for care at a nursing home facility, PACE may be able to provide care and coverage in the patient’s home or at a PACE facility. Services include primary care, hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, medical specialty services, and prescription drugs. To be eligible for PACE services, the patient must live in the service area of a PACE organization and have a requirement for a nursing home-level of care (as certified by your state).

8 Shop around for the best deal. Encourage your patients to comparison shop for the best prices rather than accepting the first or only option at their usual pharmacy. Different pharmacies offer drugs at lower prices than competitors. Also, continually compare prices at GoodRx or HealthWarehouse.com. The latter—a fully licensed Internet-based pharmacy—sells FDA-approved medications at affordable prices in all 50 states, without the requirement for insurance coverage.

9 Use of a patch pump may be less expensive for patients with type 2 diabetes who are taking basal-bolus regimens. Patches slowly deliver single short-acting insulin (usually insulin aspart or lispro) that acts as a basal insulin, with an additional reservoir for prandial insulin at mealtime and for snacks. As there is a catheter in the patch, patients would not require the use of needles.¹³

10 Try removing mealtime insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who need minimal mealtime insulin. Clinicians can initiate a safe trial of this removal by encouraging the patient to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, increase exercise, and/or use other noninsulin medications that are more affordable.

Continue to: The affordability of insulins...

The affordability of insulins is a potentially uncomfortable but necessary conversation to have with your patient. Providers are one of the best resources for patients who seek relief from financial difficulties. The recommendations discussed here can help providers and patients design a cost-conscious plan for insulin treatment. Although each recommendation is viable, the pros and cons must be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Providers and patients should also pay attention to the Senate Finance Committee’s ongoing discussions and possible resolutions that could result in lower insulin costs. Until legislation that lowers the prices of insulin comes to fruition, however, providers should continue to plan with their patients on how to best get their insulin at the lowest cost.

Test yourself with the poll here.

Almost a century after its discovery, insulin remains a life-saving yet costly medication: In the past 15 years, prices have risen more than 500%.¹ Patients may ask you why the insulin you prescribe is so expensive, and the complex process for determining drug costs makes it difficult to answer. But the bottom line is, patients need their insulin—and they want it without breaking the bank.

Thankfully, there are several strategies for reducing the cost of insulin. First and foremost, patients must be advised that not taking their prescribed insulin, or taking less insulin than prescribed, is not a safe alternative. An individualized cost-benefit analysis between patient and provider can help to determine the best option for each patient. After working in endocrinology for 5 years, I have learned the following 10 ways to help patients whose financial situations limit their access to insulin.

1 Try older insulins, including mixed insulin 70/30 or 50/50, insulin NPH, or regular insulin. Because the beneficial effects may not be as long lasting with these as with newer insulins on the market, your patient may need to test glucose levels more frequently. Also, insulin NPH and any mixed insulins are suspensions, not solutions, so patients will need to gently roll older insulins prior to use. Those in pen form may also have a shorter shelf life.

2 Switch to a syringe and vial. Although dosing can be less precise, this could be a viable option for patients with good vision and dexterity. This method helps patients save in 3 ways: (1) the insulin is less expensive; (2) syringes generally cost less (about $30 for 100) than pen needle tips (about $50 for 100); and (3) vials of NPH are longer-lasting suspensions that are stable for about 28 days once opened, compared to 14 days for pens.^2-4

3 Switch from a 30- to a 90-day supply of refills. This helps to lower copays. For example, a mail-order program (eg, Express Scripts) that ships from a warehouse typically offers lower pricing than a brick-and-mortar pharmacy with greater overhead. Many of these programs provide 2-pharmacist verification for accuracy and free home delivery of medications at a 10% discount, as well as 24-hour pharmacist access.⁵ The ease of obtaining prescriptions by this method also can help with medication adherence.

4 Patient assistance programs (PAPs) offered by insulin manufacturers can help lower costs for patients who find it difficult to afford their medication. Information on these programs is available on the respective company’s websites, usually in multiple languages (although some are limited to English and Spanish). Patients applying for a PAP must provide a proof of income and adhere to the program’s specific criteria. Renewal is typically required each year.^6-8

5 Copay cards are available to many patients with private insurance and may help make insulin more affordable. Patients may be able to receive a $25 monthly supply of insulin for up to 1 year (specific terms vary). Maximum contributions and contributions toward deductibles also vary by program, so patients need to familiarize themselves with what their particular copay card allows. Generally, copay cards are not a sustainable long-term solution; for one thing, they expire, and for another, emphasis should be placed on affordable medications rather than affording expensive medications.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Continue to: 6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare...

6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare can help lower the costs of prescription medications.⁹ A database of pharmaceutical PAPs is available on the Medicare website.¹⁰ Some PAPs may help patients on Medicare pay through the $5,100 coverage gap or “donut hole”—a term referring to a gap in prescription drug coverage once patients have met their prescription limit (all Medicare part D plans have a donut hole).^11,12 Patients and providers will need to read the fine print when applying for an external PAP, because some have a monthly or one-time start-up fee for processing the paperwork (and note, there is often paperwork for the relief program in addition to the PAP paperwork through the pharmaceutical company).

7 A Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is available in many states; check medicare.gov to see if your state is eligible. For patients 55 and older on Medicare or Medicaid who do not opt for care at a nursing home facility, PACE may be able to provide care and coverage in the patient’s home or at a PACE facility. Services include primary care, hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, medical specialty services, and prescription drugs. To be eligible for PACE services, the patient must live in the service area of a PACE organization and have a requirement for a nursing home-level of care (as certified by your state).

8 Shop around for the best deal. Encourage your patients to comparison shop for the best prices rather than accepting the first or only option at their usual pharmacy. Different pharmacies offer drugs at lower prices than competitors. Also, continually compare prices at GoodRx or HealthWarehouse.com. The latter—a fully licensed Internet-based pharmacy—sells FDA-approved medications at affordable prices in all 50 states, without the requirement for insurance coverage.

9 Use of a patch pump may be less expensive for patients with type 2 diabetes who are taking basal-bolus regimens. Patches slowly deliver single short-acting insulin (usually insulin aspart or lispro) that acts as a basal insulin, with an additional reservoir for prandial insulin at mealtime and for snacks. As there is a catheter in the patch, patients would not require the use of needles.¹³

10 Try removing mealtime insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who need minimal mealtime insulin. Clinicians can initiate a safe trial of this removal by encouraging the patient to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, increase exercise, and/or use other noninsulin medications that are more affordable.

Continue to: The affordability of insulins...

The affordability of insulins is a potentially uncomfortable but necessary conversation to have with your patient. Providers are one of the best resources for patients who seek relief from financial difficulties. The recommendations discussed here can help providers and patients design a cost-conscious plan for insulin treatment. Although each recommendation is viable, the pros and cons must be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Providers and patients should also pay attention to the Senate Finance Committee’s ongoing discussions and possible resolutions that could result in lower insulin costs. Until legislation that lowers the prices of insulin comes to fruition, however, providers should continue to plan with their patients on how to best get their insulin at the lowest cost.

Test yourself with the poll here.

Almost a century after its discovery, insulin remains a life-saving yet costly medication: In the past 15 years, prices have risen more than 500%.¹ Patients may ask you why the insulin you prescribe is so expensive, and the complex process for determining drug costs makes it difficult to answer. But the bottom line is, patients need their insulin—and they want it without breaking the bank.

Thankfully, there are several strategies for reducing the cost of insulin. First and foremost, patients must be advised that not taking their prescribed insulin, or taking less insulin than prescribed, is not a safe alternative. An individualized cost-benefit analysis between patient and provider can help to determine the best option for each patient. After working in endocrinology for 5 years, I have learned the following 10 ways to help patients whose financial situations limit their access to insulin.

1 Try older insulins, including mixed insulin 70/30 or 50/50, insulin NPH, or regular insulin. Because the beneficial effects may not be as long lasting with these as with newer insulins on the market, your patient may need to test glucose levels more frequently. Also, insulin NPH and any mixed insulins are suspensions, not solutions, so patients will need to gently roll older insulins prior to use. Those in pen form may also have a shorter shelf life.

2 Switch to a syringe and vial. Although dosing can be less precise, this could be a viable option for patients with good vision and dexterity. This method helps patients save in 3 ways: (1) the insulin is less expensive; (2) syringes generally cost less (about $30 for 100) than pen needle tips (about $50 for 100); and (3) vials of NPH are longer-lasting suspensions that are stable for about 28 days once opened, compared to 14 days for pens.^2-4

3 Switch from a 30- to a 90-day supply of refills. This helps to lower copays. For example, a mail-order program (eg, Express Scripts) that ships from a warehouse typically offers lower pricing than a brick-and-mortar pharmacy with greater overhead. Many of these programs provide 2-pharmacist verification for accuracy and free home delivery of medications at a 10% discount, as well as 24-hour pharmacist access.⁵ The ease of obtaining prescriptions by this method also can help with medication adherence.

4 Patient assistance programs (PAPs) offered by insulin manufacturers can help lower costs for patients who find it difficult to afford their medication. Information on these programs is available on the respective company’s websites, usually in multiple languages (although some are limited to English and Spanish). Patients applying for a PAP must provide a proof of income and adhere to the program’s specific criteria. Renewal is typically required each year.^6-8

5 Copay cards are available to many patients with private insurance and may help make insulin more affordable. Patients may be able to receive a $25 monthly supply of insulin for up to 1 year (specific terms vary). Maximum contributions and contributions toward deductibles also vary by program, so patients need to familiarize themselves with what their particular copay card allows. Generally, copay cards are not a sustainable long-term solution; for one thing, they expire, and for another, emphasis should be placed on affordable medications rather than affording expensive medications.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Continue to: 6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare...

6 External PAPs for patients on Medicare can help lower the costs of prescription medications.⁹ A database of pharmaceutical PAPs is available on the Medicare website.¹⁰ Some PAPs may help patients on Medicare pay through the $5,100 coverage gap or “donut hole”—a term referring to a gap in prescription drug coverage once patients have met their prescription limit (all Medicare part D plans have a donut hole).^11,12 Patients and providers will need to read the fine print when applying for an external PAP, because some have a monthly or one-time start-up fee for processing the paperwork (and note, there is often paperwork for the relief program in addition to the PAP paperwork through the pharmaceutical company).

7 A Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) is available in many states; check medicare.gov to see if your state is eligible. For patients 55 and older on Medicare or Medicaid who do not opt for care at a nursing home facility, PACE may be able to provide care and coverage in the patient’s home or at a PACE facility. Services include primary care, hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, medical specialty services, and prescription drugs. To be eligible for PACE services, the patient must live in the service area of a PACE organization and have a requirement for a nursing home-level of care (as certified by your state).

8 Shop around for the best deal. Encourage your patients to comparison shop for the best prices rather than accepting the first or only option at their usual pharmacy. Different pharmacies offer drugs at lower prices than competitors. Also, continually compare prices at GoodRx or HealthWarehouse.com. The latter—a fully licensed Internet-based pharmacy—sells FDA-approved medications at affordable prices in all 50 states, without the requirement for insurance coverage.

9 Use of a patch pump may be less expensive for patients with type 2 diabetes who are taking basal-bolus regimens. Patches slowly deliver single short-acting insulin (usually insulin aspart or lispro) that acts as a basal insulin, with an additional reservoir for prandial insulin at mealtime and for snacks. As there is a catheter in the patch, patients would not require the use of needles.¹³

10 Try removing mealtime insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes who need minimal mealtime insulin. Clinicians can initiate a safe trial of this removal by encouraging the patient to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, increase exercise, and/or use other noninsulin medications that are more affordable.

Continue to: The affordability of insulins...

The affordability of insulins is a potentially uncomfortable but necessary conversation to have with your patient. Providers are one of the best resources for patients who seek relief from financial difficulties. The recommendations discussed here can help providers and patients design a cost-conscious plan for insulin treatment. Although each recommendation is viable, the pros and cons must be weighed on a case-by-case basis. Providers and patients should also pay attention to the Senate Finance Committee’s ongoing discussions and possible resolutions that could result in lower insulin costs. Until legislation that lowers the prices of insulin comes to fruition, however, providers should continue to plan with their patients on how to best get their insulin at the lowest cost.

Test yourself with the poll here.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

A workup for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia was negative for hypothyroidism and nephrotic syndrome. She was currently taking no medications. She had no family history of dyslipidemia, and she denied alcohol consumption.

Based on the patient’s presentation, history, and the results of laboratory testing and skin biopsy, the diagnosis was eruptive xanthoma.

A RESULT OF ELEVATED TRIGLYCERIDES

Eruptive xanthoma is associated with elevation of chylomicrons and triglycerides.¹ Hyperlipidemia that causes eruptive xanthoma may be familial (ie, due to a primary genetic defect) or secondary to another disease, or both.

Types of primary hypertriglyceridemia include elevated chylomicrons (Frederickson classification type I), elevated very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) (Frederickson type IV), and elevation of both chylomicrons and VLDL (Frederickson type V).^2,3 Hypertriglyceridemia may also be secondary to obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, liver cirrhosis, excess ethanol ingestion, and medicines such as retinoids and estrogens.^2,3

Lesions of eruptive xanthoma are yellowish papules 2 to 5 mm in diameter surrounded by an erythematous border. They are formed by clusters of foamy cells caused by phagocytosis of macrophages as a consequence of increased accumulations of intracellular lipids. The most common sites are the buttocks, extensor surfaces of the arms, and the back.⁴

Eruptive xanthoma occurs with markedly elevated triglyceride levels (ie, > 1,000 mg/dL),⁵ with an estimated prevalence of 18 cases per 100,000 people (< 0.02%).⁶ Diagnosis is usually established through the clinical history, physical examination, and prompt laboratory confirmation of hypertriglyceridemia. Skin biopsy is rarely if ever needed.

RECOGNIZE AND TREAT PROMPTLY TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATIONS

Severe hypertriglyceridemia poses an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Early recognition and medical treatment in our patient prevented serious complications.

Treatment of eruptive xanthoma includes identifying the underlying cause of hypertriglyceridemia and commencing lifestyle modifications that include weight reduction, aerobic exercise, a strict low-fat diet with avoidance of simple carbohydrates and alcohol,⁷ and drug therapy.

The patient’s treatment plan

Although HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have a modest triglyceride-lowering effect and are useful to modify cardiovascular risk, fibric acid derivatives (eg, gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) are the first-line therapy.⁸ Omega-3 fatty acids, statins, or niacin may be added if necessary.⁸

Our patient’s uncontrolled glycemia caused marked hypertriglyceridemia, perhaps from a decrease in lipoprotein lipase activity in adipose tissue and muscle. Lifestyle modifications, glucose-lowering agents (metformin, glimepiride), and fenofibrate were prescribed. She was also advised to seek medical attention if she developed upper-abdominal pain, which could be a symptom of pancreatitis.

A workup for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia was negative for hypothyroidism and nephrotic syndrome. She was currently taking no medications. She had no family history of dyslipidemia, and she denied alcohol consumption.

Based on the patient’s presentation, history, and the results of laboratory testing and skin biopsy, the diagnosis was eruptive xanthoma.

A RESULT OF ELEVATED TRIGLYCERIDES

Eruptive xanthoma is associated with elevation of chylomicrons and triglycerides.¹ Hyperlipidemia that causes eruptive xanthoma may be familial (ie, due to a primary genetic defect) or secondary to another disease, or both.

Types of primary hypertriglyceridemia include elevated chylomicrons (Frederickson classification type I), elevated very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) (Frederickson type IV), and elevation of both chylomicrons and VLDL (Frederickson type V).^2,3 Hypertriglyceridemia may also be secondary to obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, liver cirrhosis, excess ethanol ingestion, and medicines such as retinoids and estrogens.^2,3

Lesions of eruptive xanthoma are yellowish papules 2 to 5 mm in diameter surrounded by an erythematous border. They are formed by clusters of foamy cells caused by phagocytosis of macrophages as a consequence of increased accumulations of intracellular lipids. The most common sites are the buttocks, extensor surfaces of the arms, and the back.⁴

Eruptive xanthoma occurs with markedly elevated triglyceride levels (ie, > 1,000 mg/dL),⁵ with an estimated prevalence of 18 cases per 100,000 people (< 0.02%).⁶ Diagnosis is usually established through the clinical history, physical examination, and prompt laboratory confirmation of hypertriglyceridemia. Skin biopsy is rarely if ever needed.

RECOGNIZE AND TREAT PROMPTLY TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATIONS

Severe hypertriglyceridemia poses an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Early recognition and medical treatment in our patient prevented serious complications.

Treatment of eruptive xanthoma includes identifying the underlying cause of hypertriglyceridemia and commencing lifestyle modifications that include weight reduction, aerobic exercise, a strict low-fat diet with avoidance of simple carbohydrates and alcohol,⁷ and drug therapy.

The patient’s treatment plan

Although HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have a modest triglyceride-lowering effect and are useful to modify cardiovascular risk, fibric acid derivatives (eg, gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) are the first-line therapy.⁸ Omega-3 fatty acids, statins, or niacin may be added if necessary.⁸

Our patient’s uncontrolled glycemia caused marked hypertriglyceridemia, perhaps from a decrease in lipoprotein lipase activity in adipose tissue and muscle. Lifestyle modifications, glucose-lowering agents (metformin, glimepiride), and fenofibrate were prescribed. She was also advised to seek medical attention if she developed upper-abdominal pain, which could be a symptom of pancreatitis.

A workup for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia was negative for hypothyroidism and nephrotic syndrome. She was currently taking no medications. She had no family history of dyslipidemia, and she denied alcohol consumption.

Based on the patient’s presentation, history, and the results of laboratory testing and skin biopsy, the diagnosis was eruptive xanthoma.

A RESULT OF ELEVATED TRIGLYCERIDES

Eruptive xanthoma is associated with elevation of chylomicrons and triglycerides.¹ Hyperlipidemia that causes eruptive xanthoma may be familial (ie, due to a primary genetic defect) or secondary to another disease, or both.

Types of primary hypertriglyceridemia include elevated chylomicrons (Frederickson classification type I), elevated very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) (Frederickson type IV), and elevation of both chylomicrons and VLDL (Frederickson type V).^2,3 Hypertriglyceridemia may also be secondary to obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, nephrotic syndrome, liver cirrhosis, excess ethanol ingestion, and medicines such as retinoids and estrogens.^2,3

Lesions of eruptive xanthoma are yellowish papules 2 to 5 mm in diameter surrounded by an erythematous border. They are formed by clusters of foamy cells caused by phagocytosis of macrophages as a consequence of increased accumulations of intracellular lipids. The most common sites are the buttocks, extensor surfaces of the arms, and the back.⁴

Eruptive xanthoma occurs with markedly elevated triglyceride levels (ie, > 1,000 mg/dL),⁵ with an estimated prevalence of 18 cases per 100,000 people (< 0.02%).⁶ Diagnosis is usually established through the clinical history, physical examination, and prompt laboratory confirmation of hypertriglyceridemia. Skin biopsy is rarely if ever needed.

RECOGNIZE AND TREAT PROMPTLY TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLICATIONS

Severe hypertriglyceridemia poses an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Early recognition and medical treatment in our patient prevented serious complications.

Treatment of eruptive xanthoma includes identifying the underlying cause of hypertriglyceridemia and commencing lifestyle modifications that include weight reduction, aerobic exercise, a strict low-fat diet with avoidance of simple carbohydrates and alcohol,⁷ and drug therapy.

The patient’s treatment plan

Although HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have a modest triglyceride-lowering effect and are useful to modify cardiovascular risk, fibric acid derivatives (eg, gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) are the first-line therapy.⁸ Omega-3 fatty acids, statins, or niacin may be added if necessary.⁸

Our patient’s uncontrolled glycemia caused marked hypertriglyceridemia, perhaps from a decrease in lipoprotein lipase activity in adipose tissue and muscle. Lifestyle modifications, glucose-lowering agents (metformin, glimepiride), and fenofibrate were prescribed. She was also advised to seek medical attention if she developed upper-abdominal pain, which could be a symptom of pancreatitis.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.