Miriam E. Tucker

TOPLINE:

People who report frequently adding salt to their food are at significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D), even after adjustment for confounding factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 402,982 participants in the UK Biobank from March 2006 to October 2010 who had completed a questionnaire about the frequency with which they added salt to food and who did not have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cancer, or cardiovascular disease at baseline.
• Urine samples were collected at baseline, sodium and potassium levels were measured, and 24-hour sodium excretion was estimated.
• Investigators followed participants from baseline to diagnosis of diabetes, death, or the censoring date (May 23, 2021), whichever occurred first. Information on T2D events were collected through medical history linkage to data on hospital admissions, questionnaire, and the death register.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 11.9 years, 13,120 incident cases of T2D were documented.
• Compared with people who reported “never/rarely” adding salt to food, the sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for developing T2D were 1.20, 1.32, and 1.86 for those who reported “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” adding salt, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After further adjustment for the Townsend deprivation index, education level, income, smoking, drinking, physical activity, and high cholesterol, the association was attenuated but remained significant, with HRs of 1.11, 1.18, and 1.28 for “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” responses, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After full adjustment, there was also a dose-dependent relationship across quintiles of urinary sodium and higher T2D risk, with HRs of 1 (reference), 1.12, 1.17, 1.28, and 1.34 for quintiles 2-5, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• Body fat percentage and body fat mass significantly mediated the association of adding salt with T2D, by estimated effects of 37.9% and 39.9%, respectively (both P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide support that reduction of adding salt to foods may act as a potential behavioral intervention approach for preventing T2D. Future clinical trials are needed to further validate our findings,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Xuan Wang, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues was published in the November 2023 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers could not completely exclude the possibility that high frequency of adding salt to foods is a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle. Self-reported frequency of adding salt to food might be subject to information bias and did not provide quantitative information on total sodium intake. In addition, participants were mainly of European descent, making application of the findings to other ethnic groups unclear; the observational design meant researchers could not rule out residual confounding; and information on addition of salt to food was available only at baseline, so potential changes in salt consumption during follow-up could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Fogarty International Center; and Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People who report frequently adding salt to their food are at significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D), even after adjustment for confounding factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 402,982 participants in the UK Biobank from March 2006 to October 2010 who had completed a questionnaire about the frequency with which they added salt to food and who did not have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cancer, or cardiovascular disease at baseline.
• Urine samples were collected at baseline, sodium and potassium levels were measured, and 24-hour sodium excretion was estimated.
• Investigators followed participants from baseline to diagnosis of diabetes, death, or the censoring date (May 23, 2021), whichever occurred first. Information on T2D events were collected through medical history linkage to data on hospital admissions, questionnaire, and the death register.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 11.9 years, 13,120 incident cases of T2D were documented.
• Compared with people who reported “never/rarely” adding salt to food, the sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for developing T2D were 1.20, 1.32, and 1.86 for those who reported “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” adding salt, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After further adjustment for the Townsend deprivation index, education level, income, smoking, drinking, physical activity, and high cholesterol, the association was attenuated but remained significant, with HRs of 1.11, 1.18, and 1.28 for “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” responses, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After full adjustment, there was also a dose-dependent relationship across quintiles of urinary sodium and higher T2D risk, with HRs of 1 (reference), 1.12, 1.17, 1.28, and 1.34 for quintiles 2-5, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• Body fat percentage and body fat mass significantly mediated the association of adding salt with T2D, by estimated effects of 37.9% and 39.9%, respectively (both P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide support that reduction of adding salt to foods may act as a potential behavioral intervention approach for preventing T2D. Future clinical trials are needed to further validate our findings,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Xuan Wang, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues was published in the November 2023 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers could not completely exclude the possibility that high frequency of adding salt to foods is a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle. Self-reported frequency of adding salt to food might be subject to information bias and did not provide quantitative information on total sodium intake. In addition, participants were mainly of European descent, making application of the findings to other ethnic groups unclear; the observational design meant researchers could not rule out residual confounding; and information on addition of salt to food was available only at baseline, so potential changes in salt consumption during follow-up could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Fogarty International Center; and Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People who report frequently adding salt to their food are at significantly greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D), even after adjustment for confounding factors.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 402,982 participants in the UK Biobank from March 2006 to October 2010 who had completed a questionnaire about the frequency with which they added salt to food and who did not have diabetes, chronic kidney disease, cancer, or cardiovascular disease at baseline.
• Urine samples were collected at baseline, sodium and potassium levels were measured, and 24-hour sodium excretion was estimated.
• Investigators followed participants from baseline to diagnosis of diabetes, death, or the censoring date (May 23, 2021), whichever occurred first. Information on T2D events were collected through medical history linkage to data on hospital admissions, questionnaire, and the death register.

TAKEAWAY:

• During a mean follow-up of 11.9 years, 13,120 incident cases of T2D were documented.
• Compared with people who reported “never/rarely” adding salt to food, the sex- and age-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for developing T2D were 1.20, 1.32, and 1.86 for those who reported “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” adding salt, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After further adjustment for the Townsend deprivation index, education level, income, smoking, drinking, physical activity, and high cholesterol, the association was attenuated but remained significant, with HRs of 1.11, 1.18, and 1.28 for “sometimes,” “usually,” and “always” responses, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• After full adjustment, there was also a dose-dependent relationship across quintiles of urinary sodium and higher T2D risk, with HRs of 1 (reference), 1.12, 1.17, 1.28, and 1.34 for quintiles 2-5, respectively (P-trend < .001).
• Body fat percentage and body fat mass significantly mediated the association of adding salt with T2D, by estimated effects of 37.9% and 39.9%, respectively (both P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings provide support that reduction of adding salt to foods may act as a potential behavioral intervention approach for preventing T2D. Future clinical trials are needed to further validate our findings,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study by Xuan Wang, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues was published in the November 2023 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers could not completely exclude the possibility that high frequency of adding salt to foods is a marker for an unhealthy lifestyle. Self-reported frequency of adding salt to food might be subject to information bias and did not provide quantitative information on total sodium intake. In addition, participants were mainly of European descent, making application of the findings to other ethnic groups unclear; the observational design meant researchers could not rule out residual confounding; and information on addition of salt to food was available only at baseline, so potential changes in salt consumption during follow-up could not be considered.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; the Fogarty International Center; and Tulane Research Centers of Excellence Awards. The authors reported no potential competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tirzepatide for chronic weight management in adults with obesity or overweight.

Eli Lilly will market tirzepatide injections for weight management under the trade name Zepbound. It was approved in May 2022 for treating type 2 diabetes. The new indication is for adults with either obesity, defined as a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater, or overweight, with a BMI of 27 or greater with at least one weight-related comorbidity, including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.

“Obesity and overweight are serious conditions that can be associated with some of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the division of diabetes, lipid disorders, and obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In light of increasing rates of both obesity and overweight in the United States, today’s approval addresses an unmet medical need.”

A once-weekly injection, tirzepatide reduces appetite by activating two gut hormones, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). The dosage is increased over 4-20 weeks to achieve a weekly dose target of 5 mg, 10 mg, or 15 mg maximum.

Efficacy was established in two pivotal randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adults with obesity or overweight plus another condition. One trial measured weight reduction after 72 weeks in a total of 2,519 patients without diabetes who received either 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg of tirzepatide once weekly. Those who received the 15-mg dose achieved on average 18% of their initial body weight, compared with placebo.

The other pivotal trial enrolled a total of 938 patients with type 2 diabetes. These patients achieved an average weight loss of 12% with once-weekly tirzepatide compared to placebo.

Another trial, which was presented at the 2023 Obesity Week meeting and was published in Nature Medicine, showed clinically meaningful added weight loss for adults with obesity who did not have diabetes and who had already experienced weight loss of at least 5% after a 12-week intensive lifestyle intervention.

Another trial, which was reported at the 2023 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, found that tirzepatide continued to produce “highly significant weight loss” when the drug was continued in a 1-year follow-up trial. Those who discontinued taking the drug regained some weight but not all.

Tirzepatide can cause gastrointestinal side effects, such as nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, and abdominal pain or discomfort. Site reactions, hypersensitivity, hair loss, burping, and gastrointestinal reflux disease have also been reported.

The medication should not be used by patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer or by patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. It should also not be used in combination with Mounjaro or another GLP-1 receptor agonist. The safety and effectiveness of the coadministration of tirzepatide with other medications for weight management have not been established.

Zepbound should go to market in the United States by the end of 2023, with an anticipated monthly list price of $1,060, according to a news release from Eli Lilly.

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

Human insulin can be left unrefrigerated for much longer than previously thought, findings from a new Cochrane review suggest.

The review included 17 studies in 22 published articles and additional unpublished information from major insulin manufacturers. The data suggest it is possible to store unopened short- and intermediate-acting human insulin vials, pens/cartridges or prefilled plastic syringes at temperatures up to 25 °C (77 °F) for a maximum of 6 months and up to 37 °C (98.6 °F) for a maximum of 2 months without a clinically relevant loss of insulin potency.

Two studies found small decrements in potency at higher temperatures and/or longer durations unrefrigerated, but the rest did not.

This contrasts with current guidance and labeling that advises storing unopened human insulin at temperatures between 2 °C (35.6 °F) and 8°C (46.4 °F), necessitating refrigeration. Once the vial or pen cartridge is opened, the guidance is to store at “room temperature” and use within about 4-6 weeks.

The recommendations vary, however, and there is no clear consensus on how human insulin should be stored in settings where reliable refrigeration can’t be guaranteed, such as low-income countries, those affected by extreme heat, or areas of conflict or natural disasters. Such areas are home to growing numbers of people with diabetes, according to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews report, published online.

The review also found that oscillating temperatures between 25 °C (77 °F) and 37 °C (98.6 °F), typical of daytime and nighttime fluctuations in tropical countries, for up to 3 months do not result in clinically relevant loss of insulin activity for short-acting, intermediate-acting, or mixed human insulin.   

“Our study opens up new possibilities for individuals living in challenging environments, where access to refrigeration is limited. By understanding the thermal stability of insulin and exploring innovative storage solutions, we can make a significant impact on the lives of those who depend on insulin for their well-being,” the study’s lead author, Bernd Richter, MD, of the Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany, said in a statement.

In addition, one small pilot clinical study showed that human insulin stored for 6 weeks in an unglazed clay pot with temperatures ranging between 25 °C (77 °F) and 27°C (80.6 °F) did not result in differences in plasma glucose–lowering in eight healthy volunteers, compared with refrigerator-stored insulin. “With the help of simple cooling devices for insulin storage such as clay pots, it is possible to effectively reduce high outside temperatures in many high-temperature regions of the world,” wrote Dr. Richter and colleagues Brenda Bongaerts, PhD, and Maria-Inti Metzendorf, also from Heinrich-Heine-University.

Asked to comment, Leonardo Scapozza, PhD, of the School of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, said that these findings align with a study he published in 2021.   

“Indeed ... we have done a small-scale study by analyzing the insulin coming back from the field and showing that insulin potency and stability was conserved. An extended clinical study where the insulin is submitted to varying controlled condition is not possible and ethically debatable. But an extended study where patients are given a log tag to monitor their real storage condition and the remaining samples are collected back and sent back for analysis in a specialized lab would be very good to further confirm the [conclusions],” said Dr. Scapozza, who was not part of Dr. Richter’s team on this review. 

While the issue of insulin refrigeration is less urgent in higher-income countries, it does arise, as in situations where people accidentally leave their unopened insulin out of the refrigerator or when they carry backup insulin while traveling.

The Cochrane Review excluded studies of insulin analogs, used in most developed countries, but Dr. Scapozza’s study had included them. “We observed the same stability as the ones used in low-income countries.” He added that his data combined with those in the new report provide evidence that would make it “possible to better and optimally use the available insulin that is becoming more and more costly.”

Dr. Scapozza also told this news organization that after he presented his data to Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), he heard from a collaborator with that group who has diabetes. “He always used his insulin for his own treatment when he was in the field working and his insulin pen was in his backpack or pocket and his treatment was working. After hearing the data, he was very happy because he got a scientific explanation why his treatment was working, whether he was in Switzerland or during his mission in the camps submitted to the same condition of storage as any other patient in low income countries.”

Dr. Richter and Dr. Scapozza report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human insulin can be left unrefrigerated for much longer than previously thought, findings from a new Cochrane review suggest.

The review included 17 studies in 22 published articles and additional unpublished information from major insulin manufacturers. The data suggest it is possible to store unopened short- and intermediate-acting human insulin vials, pens/cartridges or prefilled plastic syringes at temperatures up to 25 °C (77 °F) for a maximum of 6 months and up to 37 °C (98.6 °F) for a maximum of 2 months without a clinically relevant loss of insulin potency.

Two studies found small decrements in potency at higher temperatures and/or longer durations unrefrigerated, but the rest did not.

This contrasts with current guidance and labeling that advises storing unopened human insulin at temperatures between 2 °C (35.6 °F) and 8°C (46.4 °F), necessitating refrigeration. Once the vial or pen cartridge is opened, the guidance is to store at “room temperature” and use within about 4-6 weeks.

The recommendations vary, however, and there is no clear consensus on how human insulin should be stored in settings where reliable refrigeration can’t be guaranteed, such as low-income countries, those affected by extreme heat, or areas of conflict or natural disasters. Such areas are home to growing numbers of people with diabetes, according to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews report, published online.

The review also found that oscillating temperatures between 25 °C (77 °F) and 37 °C (98.6 °F), typical of daytime and nighttime fluctuations in tropical countries, for up to 3 months do not result in clinically relevant loss of insulin activity for short-acting, intermediate-acting, or mixed human insulin.   

“Our study opens up new possibilities for individuals living in challenging environments, where access to refrigeration is limited. By understanding the thermal stability of insulin and exploring innovative storage solutions, we can make a significant impact on the lives of those who depend on insulin for their well-being,” the study’s lead author, Bernd Richter, MD, of the Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany, said in a statement.

In addition, one small pilot clinical study showed that human insulin stored for 6 weeks in an unglazed clay pot with temperatures ranging between 25 °C (77 °F) and 27°C (80.6 °F) did not result in differences in plasma glucose–lowering in eight healthy volunteers, compared with refrigerator-stored insulin. “With the help of simple cooling devices for insulin storage such as clay pots, it is possible to effectively reduce high outside temperatures in many high-temperature regions of the world,” wrote Dr. Richter and colleagues Brenda Bongaerts, PhD, and Maria-Inti Metzendorf, also from Heinrich-Heine-University.

Asked to comment, Leonardo Scapozza, PhD, of the School of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, said that these findings align with a study he published in 2021.   

“Indeed ... we have done a small-scale study by analyzing the insulin coming back from the field and showing that insulin potency and stability was conserved. An extended clinical study where the insulin is submitted to varying controlled condition is not possible and ethically debatable. But an extended study where patients are given a log tag to monitor their real storage condition and the remaining samples are collected back and sent back for analysis in a specialized lab would be very good to further confirm the [conclusions],” said Dr. Scapozza, who was not part of Dr. Richter’s team on this review. 

While the issue of insulin refrigeration is less urgent in higher-income countries, it does arise, as in situations where people accidentally leave their unopened insulin out of the refrigerator or when they carry backup insulin while traveling.

The Cochrane Review excluded studies of insulin analogs, used in most developed countries, but Dr. Scapozza’s study had included them. “We observed the same stability as the ones used in low-income countries.” He added that his data combined with those in the new report provide evidence that would make it “possible to better and optimally use the available insulin that is becoming more and more costly.”

Dr. Scapozza also told this news organization that after he presented his data to Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), he heard from a collaborator with that group who has diabetes. “He always used his insulin for his own treatment when he was in the field working and his insulin pen was in his backpack or pocket and his treatment was working. After hearing the data, he was very happy because he got a scientific explanation why his treatment was working, whether he was in Switzerland or during his mission in the camps submitted to the same condition of storage as any other patient in low income countries.”

Dr. Richter and Dr. Scapozza report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human insulin can be left unrefrigerated for much longer than previously thought, findings from a new Cochrane review suggest.

The review included 17 studies in 22 published articles and additional unpublished information from major insulin manufacturers. The data suggest it is possible to store unopened short- and intermediate-acting human insulin vials, pens/cartridges or prefilled plastic syringes at temperatures up to 25 °C (77 °F) for a maximum of 6 months and up to 37 °C (98.6 °F) for a maximum of 2 months without a clinically relevant loss of insulin potency.

Two studies found small decrements in potency at higher temperatures and/or longer durations unrefrigerated, but the rest did not.

This contrasts with current guidance and labeling that advises storing unopened human insulin at temperatures between 2 °C (35.6 °F) and 8°C (46.4 °F), necessitating refrigeration. Once the vial or pen cartridge is opened, the guidance is to store at “room temperature” and use within about 4-6 weeks.

The recommendations vary, however, and there is no clear consensus on how human insulin should be stored in settings where reliable refrigeration can’t be guaranteed, such as low-income countries, those affected by extreme heat, or areas of conflict or natural disasters. Such areas are home to growing numbers of people with diabetes, according to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews report, published online.

The review also found that oscillating temperatures between 25 °C (77 °F) and 37 °C (98.6 °F), typical of daytime and nighttime fluctuations in tropical countries, for up to 3 months do not result in clinically relevant loss of insulin activity for short-acting, intermediate-acting, or mixed human insulin.   

“Our study opens up new possibilities for individuals living in challenging environments, where access to refrigeration is limited. By understanding the thermal stability of insulin and exploring innovative storage solutions, we can make a significant impact on the lives of those who depend on insulin for their well-being,” the study’s lead author, Bernd Richter, MD, of the Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany, said in a statement.

In addition, one small pilot clinical study showed that human insulin stored for 6 weeks in an unglazed clay pot with temperatures ranging between 25 °C (77 °F) and 27°C (80.6 °F) did not result in differences in plasma glucose–lowering in eight healthy volunteers, compared with refrigerator-stored insulin. “With the help of simple cooling devices for insulin storage such as clay pots, it is possible to effectively reduce high outside temperatures in many high-temperature regions of the world,” wrote Dr. Richter and colleagues Brenda Bongaerts, PhD, and Maria-Inti Metzendorf, also from Heinrich-Heine-University.

Asked to comment, Leonardo Scapozza, PhD, of the School of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, said that these findings align with a study he published in 2021.   

“Indeed ... we have done a small-scale study by analyzing the insulin coming back from the field and showing that insulin potency and stability was conserved. An extended clinical study where the insulin is submitted to varying controlled condition is not possible and ethically debatable. But an extended study where patients are given a log tag to monitor their real storage condition and the remaining samples are collected back and sent back for analysis in a specialized lab would be very good to further confirm the [conclusions],” said Dr. Scapozza, who was not part of Dr. Richter’s team on this review. 

While the issue of insulin refrigeration is less urgent in higher-income countries, it does arise, as in situations where people accidentally leave their unopened insulin out of the refrigerator or when they carry backup insulin while traveling.

The Cochrane Review excluded studies of insulin analogs, used in most developed countries, but Dr. Scapozza’s study had included them. “We observed the same stability as the ones used in low-income countries.” He added that his data combined with those in the new report provide evidence that would make it “possible to better and optimally use the available insulin that is becoming more and more costly.”

Dr. Scapozza also told this news organization that after he presented his data to Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), he heard from a collaborator with that group who has diabetes. “He always used his insulin for his own treatment when he was in the field working and his insulin pen was in his backpack or pocket and his treatment was working. After hearing the data, he was very happy because he got a scientific explanation why his treatment was working, whether he was in Switzerland or during his mission in the camps submitted to the same condition of storage as any other patient in low income countries.”

Dr. Richter and Dr. Scapozza report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Time-restricted eating (TRE), also known as intermittent fasting, for a daily 8-hour period without calorie counting produced greater weight loss among people with type 2 diabetes and obesity, compared with calorie restriction, while hemoglobin A1c levels dropped with both approaches, compared with no intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Six-month clinical trial of 75 adult participants with type 2 diabetes and obesity, randomly assigned to either 8-hour TRE (noon to 8 p.m. only) without calorie counting, a 25% daily calorie restriction, or control.

TAKEAWAY:

• The primary outcome, change in body weight at month 6, was –3.56% (P = .004) with TRE vs. –1.78% with calorie restriction (P = .06), compared with controls.
• The mean calorie deficit over the 6 months was –313 kcal/day with TRE, –197 kcal/day with calorie restriction, and –16 kcal/day for controls.
• Self-reported adherence to the regimens was 87% of days with 8-hour TRE vs. 68% reporting adherence with calorie goals over the 6 months.  
• A1c levels were reduced significantly by 0.91% in the TRE group and 0.94% in the calorie-restriction group, relative to controls, with no differences between the two intervention groups.
• No serious adverse events were reported.
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia occurrences didn’t differ between groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings ... show that TRE is safe in patients who are using either diet alone or medications to control their [type 2 diabetes]. However, for people using sulfonylureas and/or insulin, adopting a TRE regimen will require medication changes and regular monitoring, particularly in the initial stages of the diet.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Vasiliki Pavlou, MS, RD, of the department of kinesiology and nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• Relatively short trial duration.
• Lack of blinding.
• A higher proportion in the TRE group were using newer type 2 diabetes medications at baseline.
• Self-reported dietary intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago, and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Pavlou reports no relevant financial relationships. Several authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Time-restricted eating (TRE), also known as intermittent fasting, for a daily 8-hour period without calorie counting produced greater weight loss among people with type 2 diabetes and obesity, compared with calorie restriction, while hemoglobin A1c levels dropped with both approaches, compared with no intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Six-month clinical trial of 75 adult participants with type 2 diabetes and obesity, randomly assigned to either 8-hour TRE (noon to 8 p.m. only) without calorie counting, a 25% daily calorie restriction, or control.

TAKEAWAY:

• The primary outcome, change in body weight at month 6, was –3.56% (P = .004) with TRE vs. –1.78% with calorie restriction (P = .06), compared with controls.
• The mean calorie deficit over the 6 months was –313 kcal/day with TRE, –197 kcal/day with calorie restriction, and –16 kcal/day for controls.
• Self-reported adherence to the regimens was 87% of days with 8-hour TRE vs. 68% reporting adherence with calorie goals over the 6 months.  
• A1c levels were reduced significantly by 0.91% in the TRE group and 0.94% in the calorie-restriction group, relative to controls, with no differences between the two intervention groups.
• No serious adverse events were reported.
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia occurrences didn’t differ between groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings ... show that TRE is safe in patients who are using either diet alone or medications to control their [type 2 diabetes]. However, for people using sulfonylureas and/or insulin, adopting a TRE regimen will require medication changes and regular monitoring, particularly in the initial stages of the diet.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Vasiliki Pavlou, MS, RD, of the department of kinesiology and nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• Relatively short trial duration.
• Lack of blinding.
• A higher proportion in the TRE group were using newer type 2 diabetes medications at baseline.
• Self-reported dietary intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago, and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Pavlou reports no relevant financial relationships. Several authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Time-restricted eating (TRE), also known as intermittent fasting, for a daily 8-hour period without calorie counting produced greater weight loss among people with type 2 diabetes and obesity, compared with calorie restriction, while hemoglobin A1c levels dropped with both approaches, compared with no intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Six-month clinical trial of 75 adult participants with type 2 diabetes and obesity, randomly assigned to either 8-hour TRE (noon to 8 p.m. only) without calorie counting, a 25% daily calorie restriction, or control.

TAKEAWAY:

• The primary outcome, change in body weight at month 6, was –3.56% (P = .004) with TRE vs. –1.78% with calorie restriction (P = .06), compared with controls.
• The mean calorie deficit over the 6 months was –313 kcal/day with TRE, –197 kcal/day with calorie restriction, and –16 kcal/day for controls.
• Self-reported adherence to the regimens was 87% of days with 8-hour TRE vs. 68% reporting adherence with calorie goals over the 6 months.  
• A1c levels were reduced significantly by 0.91% in the TRE group and 0.94% in the calorie-restriction group, relative to controls, with no differences between the two intervention groups.
• No serious adverse events were reported.
• Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia occurrences didn’t differ between groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings ... show that TRE is safe in patients who are using either diet alone or medications to control their [type 2 diabetes]. However, for people using sulfonylureas and/or insulin, adopting a TRE regimen will require medication changes and regular monitoring, particularly in the initial stages of the diet.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Vasiliki Pavlou, MS, RD, of the department of kinesiology and nutrition, University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• Relatively short trial duration.
• Lack of blinding.
• A higher proportion in the TRE group were using newer type 2 diabetes medications at baseline.
• Self-reported dietary intake.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Illinois at Chicago, and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Pavlou reports no relevant financial relationships. Several authors reported relationships with industry. The full list can be found with the original article.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Testosterone replacement therapy was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c at 1 and 2 years among men with type 2 diabetes, a multinational audit shows.

“If you have a patient with type 2 diabetes, sexual dysfunction, or fatigue, please consider checking their testosterone level. And if they fulfill criteria for testosterone deficiency and have had their [prostate-specific antigen] checked, consider a trial of treatment and follow them,” study lead author T. Hugh Jones, MD, consultant physician and endocrinologist at Barnsley (England) Hospital NHS Foundation Trust advised, speaking with this news organization.

Dr. Jones also urges clinicians worldwide to enter their patients’ data into the ABCD Testosterone Audit, which aims to identify long-term outcomes and predictors of response to testosterone replacement therapy.

Dr. Jones, who is also professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, presented the preliminary data analysis at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Thus far, a total of 428 men with type 2 diabetes and hypogonadism are entered into the audit, from 34 centers in eight countries: the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Among 121 of the men at 12 months, there was a drop in A1c from a baseline level of 71.27 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 61.26 mmol/mol (7.8%). Among 104 men at 24 months, the drop was from 71.4 mmol/mol (8.7%) to 55.97 mmol/mol (7.3%). Both decreases were significant (P < .001).

Prior data from Dr. Jones’ group showed that about 40% of men with type 2 diabetes have symptomatic testosterone deficiency. Testosterone deficiency is also associated with adverse effects on cardiovascular risk factors, bone health, muscle strength, sexual function, and psychological well-being, yet it is often overlooked, Dr. Jones noted.

“It’s not typically measured in routine clinical practice. ... Deficiency is very common, but a lot of practitioners don’t treat it and don’t ask about it. But in fact, treatment has very significant benefits for patients. ... We know from sildenafil (Viagra) studies that 60%of people who didn’t respond were testosterone deficient. After being given testosterone, they converted to Viagra responders,” he noted.

Regarding safety concerns, the recent findings from the TRAVERSE study, in which about 70% of participants had type 2 diabetes, demonstrated no increased cardiovascular risk. There was also no association with prostate cancer, although it’s important to monitor prostate-specific antigen in patients for the first year on testosterone replacement, Dr. Jones said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Bradley D. Anawalt, MD, chief of medicine at the University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, told this news organization, “This ‘worldwide survey’ confirms many studies from around the world over the past 20 years. ... [T]he association is due to ‘reverse causation,’ in that diabetes type 2 and obesity lower testosterone concentrations. Weight loss of 5%-10% may raise testosterone concentrations in men with high body mass indices, large waist circumferences, and low blood testosterone concentrations.”

At the same time, Dr. Anawalt pointed to data suggesting that “[t]reatment of androgen deficiency may facilitate lifestyle measures in men with high [body mass indexes] and high risk of type 2 diabetes to prevent, or more likely delay, the development of type 2 diabetes.”

However, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Anawalt emphasized that testosterone therapy would not be expected to affect blood glucose levels or any other cardiometabolic parameters in men who are not testosterone deficient, regardless of diabetes status.

“It’s important when you give testosterone to replace it to the normal level. Adequate treatment gives the greatest benefit,”Dr. Jones said.

As more centers contribute data to the ABCD audit, Jones anticipates collecting clinical practice data on a variety of clinical parameters, including complications, total insulin dose, kidney function, and eventually cardiovascular outcomes.

In the meantime, he said, giving testosterone replacement to men with deficiency can be very rewarding for many reasons. “People feel better. Individual patients come back and say ‘thank you doctor, you’ve given me my life back.’ It’s not often you get that. And the compliance is excellent.”

Dr. Jones is a speaker for, advisory board member for, and/or travel grant recipient of Besins Healthcare, Grantss, Grunenthal, and Simple Pharma. Dr. Anawalt has no disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – The investigational incretin receptor agonist pemvidutide produced significant weight loss and other cardiometabolic benefits in a phase 2 randomized trial, adding a different type of “twincretin” to a growing mix of incretin-based weight-loss drugs in development that also offer additional benefits.

Pemvidutide (Altimmune Inc) is a long-acting “balanced” dual agonist of both glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon that is in development for the treatment of obesity and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) but not type 2 diabetes, as its effect on glucose is neutral. Phase 1 data for pemvidutide’s liver effect were presented in 2022.

In contrast, the dual GLP-1-glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) has been approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It awaits an indication for obesity.

“When you look [at] the results for any given agent, think about obesity as a series of problems. Some overlap, and some don’t. While about 20%-25% of people with obesity also have type 2 diabetes, not everybody does. So the compounds that don’t lower glucose ... those will be great for others who have [fatty liver disease] or hyperlipidemia. ... It’s not going to be one compound for everybody,” said Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the center for weight management and metabolic clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Results of a new 24-week interim analysis of data from the phase 2 pemvidutide trial, called MOMENTUM, were presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes by Dr. Aronne.

Included in that session were encore presentations of data for another GLP-1-glucagon dual agonist, survodutide, as well as data for Eli Lilly’s GLP-1-GIP-glucagon “triagonist,” retatrutide. Retatrutide is in development to induce weight loss, while survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma), like pemvidutide, is in development to induce weight loss and treat fatty liver disease.

Added Dr. Aronne, “As good as [the triple agonist] retatrutide looks, I doubt that every single person with obesity in the world will be treated with it. ... Think about this as a field, the way you treat diabetes and every other chronic illness.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Rajna Golubic, PhD, of the Oxford (England) Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, told this news organization, “We need to think in terms of treating beyond weight loss. ... We need to look at the person holistically and at other aspects of cardiometabolic health and treat in a personalized way and choose treatments according to the comorbidities people have.”

Regarding the dual GLP-1-glucagon agonists, including pemvidutide, Dr. Golubic pointed out that the glucagon agonism does the opposite of glucose-lowering agents but that the compound is “balanced for greater affinity for the GLP-1 receptor vs. glucagon, so that the beneficial effects outweigh the effect for glucose but it still harnesses the benefits of glucagon on liver with a decrease in liver fat, with positive effects on heart, positive effects on kidneys, and other beneficial metabolic effects.”
 

Pemvidutide lowers weight, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood pressure

Dr. Aronne began his presentation by noting that dyslipidemia, fatty liver disease, and hypertension are the most significant comorbidities of obesity, occurring in 66%-70%, 58%-75%, and 45%-55% of patients, respectively, while type 2 diabetes is less common, at 19%-23%.

Pemvidutide’s GLP-1 receptor agonism reduces appetite, inflammation, and gastric emptying, while glucagon agonism increases lipolysis, mobilizes fat, and increases energy expenditure, Dr. Aronne explained.

The 48-week phase 2 MOMENTUM trial randomly assigned 320 participants with overweight or obesity and at least one obesity-related comorbidity but not diabetes to receive weekly doses of 1.2 mg, 1.8 mg, or 2.4 mg of pemvidutide or placebo. The two lower pemvidutide doses were initiated immediately without titration, while the 2.4-mg dose was titrated rapidly over 4 weeks.

In a prespecified interim analysis of 160 participants, the percent body weight loss at 24 weeks was 10.7%, 9.4%, and 7.3% with the 2.4-mg, 1.8-mg, and 1.2-mg doses, respectively (P < .001). All weight loss values were significant; weight loss with placebo was a nonsignificant 1%.

The proportions of patients who lost at least 5% of their body weight were 84.6%, 66.7%, and 66.7%, respectively, vs. 25% with placebo. Half of the patients who received the 2.4-mg and 1.8-mg doses lost at least 10% of their body weight. Reductions in waist circumference followed suit; the patients who received the 2.4-mg dose lost an average of 10.2 cm, or “in the U.S., about 4 inches or 4 belt loops. That’s pretty good, you need a new belt,” Dr. Aronne commented.

Significant reductions in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also seen at week 24 by 16.5% and 25.0%, respectively, with the 2.4-mg dose. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels also dropped, although not significantly; high-density lipoprotein levels dropped significantly.

Systolic blood pressure dropped by 5.5 mm Hg, and diastolic blood pressure dropped by 1.8 mm Hg in the 2.4-mg group and by lesser degrees among the patients who received lower doses. There were no significant changes in heart rate, Dr. Aronne noted.

Glucose homeostasis was preserved in all groups throughout the 24 weeks.

As with all drugs in the incretin class, gastrointestinal adverse events were common. Severe vomiting occurred in one person in the 1.8-mg group and in four with 2.4 mg. Efforts will be made to reduce that in subsequent trials, Dr. Aronne said.

“We have learned over time that going more gradually in titrating up these agents is a better strategy, allowing dose reduction may be a better strategy, and allowing antiemetics temporarily as we increase the dose is a lesson that many have learned doing these trials and of course in our clinical practices,” he commented.

Dr. Golubic told this news organization that the recent emergence of potent incretin-based weight loss drugs is “a huge paradigm shift. The prevalence of obesity will be 35% or higher by 2035. Bariatric surgery isn’t feasible for everyone, and it’s very expensive, so we need drugs to provide benefits in terms of lowering weight, glucose, and other cardiometabolic risk factors.”

The full 48-week data for MOMENTUM will be announced in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Dr. Aronne has received consulting fees from and serves on advisory boards for Allurion, Altimmune, Atria, Gelesis, Jamieson Wellness, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Optum, Eli Lilly, Senda Biosciences, and Versanis; has received research funding from Allurion, AstraZeneca, Gelesis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Eli Lilly; has equity interests in Allurion, ERX Pharmaceuticals, Gelesis, Intellihealth, Jamieson Wellness, and Myos Corp; and serves on a board of directors for ERX Pharmaceuticals, Intellihealth, and Jamieson Wellness. Dr. Golubic has received research support from AstraZeneca.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An upcoming joint society statement on hyperglycemic emergencies in adults with diabetes will de-emphasize glucose from the diagnostic criteria for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), along with many other updates to the last statement on the topic, published 14 years ago.  

Based on extensive literature reviews and observations of current trends, the new document – due to be published soon – will cover diagnosis and management of the two most serious acute hyperglycemic emergencies seen in adults, DKA and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS).

New to the 2023 version will be a strong emphasis on the excess morbidity and mortality risks associated with the increasingly common “hybrid” presentation of the two conditions together, now seen in about a third of cases.

The new report will also more strongly urge clinicians to investigate why the person experienced the emergency.

While new-onset diabetes and infection are recognized precipitating causes for DKA, insulin omission related to finances, mental health, and social determinants should be identified, and patients directed to appropriate resources, said experts previewing the upcoming new report at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“The challenge is, although we were making progress for a long time in terms of those hyperglycemic crises, we’ve really plateaued and there are still people being admitted in large numbers, and when you look more globally even more so,” said American Diabetes Association Chief Science and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD.

The new consensus report will be jointly endorsed by the ADA, the EASD, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Diabetes Technology Society, and the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care. The previous consensus statement on the subject was published in 2009 by the ADA alone.
 

New DKA and HHS definitions reflect emerging trends

The statement will revise the definition of DKA, partly spurred by the increasing occurrence and recognition of euglycemic ketoacidosis arising from the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. For all patients with hyperglycemic crisis, the hyperglycemia cutoff is now lowered to 200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) from the previous 250 mg/dL.

However, the glucose cutoff has been removed entirely for people with a history of diabetes.

“Both of these changes are recognizing the wide range of glucose levels at the presence of DKA. Approximately 10% of DKA occurs with euglycemia or near-normoglycemia,” noted coauthor Shivani Misra, MD, PhD, senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Medicine at Imperial College, London.

For assessing ketosis in DKA, the new statement strongly recommends use of beta-hydroxybutyrate – either via point-of-care test or serum level measured in a laboratory – with a low cutoff of ≥ 3.0 mmol/L. Alternatively, a urine ketone strip value of 2+ or greater can be used.

However, beta-hydroxybutyrate testing is more widely available now than it was in 2009 and is strongly preferred over urine ketone measurement because it’s the predominant ketone during acidosis. Moreover, urine acetoacetate – measured by the strips – paradoxically increases during resolution of DKA, and drug interferences can occur with urine ketone measurement, Dr. Misra noted.

Metabolic acidosis is now defined as a pH < 7.3 and/or a bicarbonate concentration < 18 mmol/L, up from 15 in some prior guidelines including the United Kingdom’s. Also, anion gap has been removed from the main definition but, the document will say, can still be used in settings where ketone testing is unavailable.

As previously, the new statement will classify DKA by mild, moderate, and severe but now for the first time there are recommendations of care for each of those levels, as well as for HHS.

For HHS, the glucose cutoff of ≥ 600 mg/dL will stay the same. But now, the effective serum osmolality has been lowered from > 320 to > 300 mOsml/L to account for the effect of dehydration, along with an alternative criteria of total serum osmolality > 320 mOsm/L. The same two changes as with DKA for both ketones and acidosis have also been included for HHS.

Asked to comment, session audience member and independent diabetes industry consultant Charles Alexander, MD, told this news organization, “I liked the proposal to eliminate the anion gap in decision-making and to focus on measurement of blood ketones, principally beta-hydroxybutyrate, in the diagnosis of DKA and monitoring the effect of treatment.

“If someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor, there is no need to look at blood glucose levels, which may be normal or near normal in the setting of DKA.”

But Dr. Alexander thinks that they should have eliminated glucose levels entirely as part of the DKA/HHS definition even for people without diabetes.

“The problem is that medical education for many years has taught us that DKA is a condition of high blood glucose, but it may not be. It is good that they said blood glucose levels were not important if the patient had a history of diabetes. However, a glucose of 200mg/dL may not be low enough if someone is on an SGLT2 inhibitor. There needs to be a much lower threshold for measuring blood ketones in anyone with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, regardless of the blood glucose level.”
 

Acute management: IV fluids, insulin, and potassium

Like the 2009 statement, the new one will include detailed management flowcharts for DKA and HHS, but this time in color. This new statement includes individual algorithms for management with intravenous fluids, insulin, and potassium. Bicarbonate has been removed and relegated to a note at the bottom saying that it should only be considered if pH is < 7.0.

Under fluid treatment, the new statement offers more information about using crystalloids to treat dehydration and a recommendation to add dextrose to IV fluid therapy as a substrate when the glucose drops below 250 mg/dL, in order to prevent hypoglycemia. For euglycemic DKA, the recommendation is to include dextrose and normal saline simultaneously.

And for the first time, subcutaneous rather than IV insulin is considered acceptable for mild, but not moderate or severe, DKA. 

Two options are suggested for IV insulin in HHS: The fluid can be given first and low-dose fixed-rate insulin infusion added, or fluids and insulin can be given at the same time.

Criteria for resolution of DKA are a venous pH of ≥ 7.3 or bicarbonate > 18 mmol/L, ketones < 0.6 mmol/L, and glucose ideally < 200 mg/dL (11.0 mmol/L). For HHS, resolution is suggested when the measured or calculated serum osmolality falls to < 300 mosm/kg, blood glucose is < 250mg/dL (13.9 mmol/L), urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/hour, and cognitive status is improved.

The statement also will provide detailed recommended options for transitioning from IV to subcutaneous insulin, but defers to clinical judgment for deciding when the patient can be discharged. The initiation or continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors is not recommended at any time during hospitalization for hyperglycemic crises.
 

Mitigating complications, preventing recurrence

In addition to listing potential complications of treating hyperglycemic crises, just as the 2009 statement did, the new one will offer mitigation strategies for some of the more common ones. For preventing hypoglycemia, frequent blood glucose monitoring is advised along with adding dextrose to the IV fluids when glucose drops below 250 mg/dL.

For prevention of hypokalemia, which occurs in about half of patients treated for DKA and HHS, the statement recommends potassium monitoring every 4 hours and replacement added to fluids.

Acute kidney injury, also occurring in about half of people treated for DKA and/or HHS, usually resolves with hydration. Daily renal function monitoring is advised.
 

Preventing recurrence: Many factors beyond clinical

Prevention of recurrence with readmission for DKA and/or HHS, occurring in up to 22% of U.S. patients within 30 days, entails close follow-up within 2-4 weeks after discharge (including via telemedicine), and assessment of possible causes, including mental health disorders and social determinants of health.

Appropriate education should be provided, including “structured education” involving problem-solving, sick day rules, injection techniques, a review of insulin doses, consideration of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and home ketone testing.  

Patients should be provided with an adequate supply of insulin and durable diabetes equipment, along with contact information for health care professionals who can assist them. Social service professionals can be helpful for patients who lack reliable access.

Dr. Gabbay told this news organization, “The eye-opening thing is we tend to typically think of DKA as how people tend to get diagnosed with diabetes and, yes, that’s true, but that’s only a minority of people. Those might be preventable by early screening, but all these other people and the number of recurrent episodes, that’s an area where it’s really a failure of the system where we can do better in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Education is only part of it, he stressed. “It’s not just an intelligence thing. It’s social factors, and there can be complex psychological issues and mental health issues. We need to screen for those things when we see someone coming back the second, third, fifth, or sixth time. We’ve all seen that. Just educating them to take their insulin is not the answer. …You’ve got to ask the questions and engage them to go a little deeper.”

Dr. Gabbay is an employee of the ADA. Dr. Alexander has reported being a nonpaid advisor for diaTribe and a consultant for Kinexum. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation in the United Kingdom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – An international consensus report on precision diabetes medicine aims to further move the field from aspirational to actionable with a person-first focus.

“Diabetes recommendations often focus on what works well for the average person. However, because diabetes is an incredibly heterogeneous disease, few people are Mr. or Mrs. ‘average’ and one-size-fits-all approaches fail many people in need. Precision medicine seeks to address this major problem,” said Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PDMI) cochair Paul Franks, PhD, MPhil, head of the department of translational medicine at the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark.

The report is the second from the joint American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes PDMI, a consortium organized in 2018 with the aim of addressing “the untenable health and economic burdens of diabetes prevention and care.”

Based on findings from 15 systematic reviews and expert opinions, the new statement covers the key precision medicine pillars of prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for each of four major recognized forms of diabetes: monogenic, gestational, type 1, and type 2. It addresses clinical translation of precision medicine research, including near-term actionable measures. Working groups were tasked with defining the key research questions that need to be addressed for precision diabetes medicine to be implemented into clinical practice by 2030.

Dr. Franks noted that “precision medicine seeks to improve diabetes prevention and care by combining data about a person’s health or disease state and response to medications. The aim is to tailor the advice given about diabetes prevention or treatment to the person in question, rather than having them make do with generic advice. Precision medicine very much focuses on treating the person and not the disease.”

A 90-minute symposium summarizing the report was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. An executive summary was simultaneously published in the journal Nature Medicine. Four additional complementary papers, covering cardiometabolic disease precision medicine, diabetes heterogeneity, precision medicine of obesity, and precision cardiometabolic medicine in low- and middle-income countries, were published separately in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

In a comment, Kamlesh Khunti, MD, professor of primary care diabetes and vascular medicine at the University of Leicester, England, called the new report “fantastic collaborative work.”

However, Dr. Khunti said, “I think at the moment we’re at the discovery stage of precision medicine. The clinical utility of that, we’ll have to see over the years.”

Dr. Khunti also pointed out: “A lot of the work done in precision medicine has been on specific diseases, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But, 30% of people don’t just have one disease, they have multiple long-term conditions. I think we need to start thinking about that now, rather than single conditions, because we want to look at drug targets that will hit multiple long-term conditions rather than one single condition.”
 

Currently, a dearth of data

Even just within diabetes, there is a dearth of quality data. In fact, Dr. Franks told this news organization, there has only been one precision medicine trial in diabetes, called TriMaster, comparing individual responses to three different second-line treatments for type 2 diabetes after metformin. “The problem with that trial is that the second-line medications it investigated aren’t widely prescribed now. The trial was designed back in 2014. It took a long time, then there was COVID, and by the time it was published too much time had elapsed and it was already out of date.”

Ideally, to make this effort current, Dr. Franks said, “is to get drug companies to implement these trials into their development pipelines. If you think about it, it’s far more efficient to implement precision medicine early in the drug development process than late, because when you do it late you end up having to do lots of comparisons of different possibilities. When you do it early you sort out those comparisons as part of the development process, so it really comes down to companies being willing to do that and regulators being willing to accept results from those trials. That’s another challenge, which is why we stress regulatory engagement as a key thing.”

In the future, he said, using the second-line type 2 diabetes drug as an example, when a person is diagnosed with type 2 diabetes they might automatically be given a companion diagnostic that’s more sophisticated and more precise than current ways of defining cardiovascular risk to better predict which individuals are more likely to experience a cardiovascular event.

This concept, referred to as “precision diagnostics,” is a “core driver of precision medicine,” Dr. Franks said. “If we can get a higher predictive accuracy on cardiovascular outcomes in people with diabetes, essentially treatment allocation is likely to be more precise too, because you’re not treating people you don’t need to treat and you’re not missing people you should have treated. I think that’s probably how it will work out.”
 

‘Studying diverse populations benefits everyone’

An important component emphasized in the report is the lack of “relevant, high-quality research in people of non-European ancestry, hindering the development and implementation of precision diabetes medicine in many of the most heavily burdened populations worldwide.”

That specific issue was addressed during the symposium by Shivani Misra, MBBS, PhD clinical senior lecturer in diabetes and endocrinology at Imperial College, London, and the lead author of the separate complementary paper on the topic.

Dr. Misra argued against the notion that precision medicine is only for wealthy countries, noting that diabetes and other noncommunicable diseases are becoming major health problems in low- and middle-income countries. “Resource-restricted settings may derive the greatest benefits from precision medicine,” she said. “Studying diverse populations benefits everyone.”

And worldwide, she noted, “the right drug for the right person will improve cost-effectiveness in the long-term.”

Dr. Franks is an employee of the Novo Nordisk Foundation, a “purely philanthropic enterprise-owning foundation” with a portfolio of 151 companies. He has received consultancy fees from Zoe Ltd., Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk, and research funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Khunti has acted as a consultant, speaker, or received grants for investigator-initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini Group, Janssen, and Napp. Dr. Misra has received speaker fees from Sanofi and ABCD and an investigator-initiated research grant from Dexcom, and is a trustee for the Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation.

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

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG – Initiating metformin treatment at gestational diabetes diagnosis was associated with improved glycemic control and reduced gestational weight gain, according to the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Overall, the trial’s primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ between women with gestational diabetes randomly assigned to either placebo or metformin. However, women taking metformin were significantly less likely to require insulin and had significantly lower fasting blood glucose levels at weeks 32 and 38.

“With a composite outcome it’s more difficult to find a positive result ... So, although the primary composite outcome was not positive, the components of the primary outcome that are clinically meaningful were positive,” lead study author Fidelma Dunne, PhD, professor and endocrine consultant at the University of Galway, Ireland, said in an interview.

There were no differences in maternal or neonatal morbidities, but there was a nonsignificant increase in small for gestational age (SGA), a finding that has been seen in some but not all previous studies of metformin use in gestational diabetes.

Dr. Dunne presented the findings on Oct. 3 at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were simultaneously published in JAMA.

Current recommendations from the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence say metformin is a suitable first-line therapy for gestational diabetes. However, both the American Diabetes Association and the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine do not, particularly for pregnancies with hypertension or preeclampsia or in those who are at risk for intrauterine growth restriction.

“Gestational diabetes is now reaching epidemic proportions. And of course, the vast majority of these women are in low- and middle-income countries where insulin might not be available, or the storage may not allow it to be used effectively. If you have a medication that in the majority of women is safe and effective it may actually help a lot of women in [those regions],” Dr. Dunne said.

Moreover, she noted, “women with gestational diabetes are testing their sugar with finger pricks four to seven times per day and we ask them to take insulin one to four times a day. So if you can relieve any of that pain related to treatment of their condition than that is a benefit for the women as well.”

Asked to comment, Katrien Benhalima, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium, said, “I think it’s an interesting study because they investigated something novel, to initiate immediately metformin or placebo. Normally what we do with gestational diabetes is once we get the diagnosis, we treat them with lifestyle, and if that’s insufficient then we start with medical therapy. So this is a novel approach.”

She also agreed with Dr. Dunne that the lack of significance for the primary outcome “isn’t an issue of power but it is a composite outcome. If you look at the individual outcomes, as can be expected, the women taking metformin had less need for insulin treatment.”

But, Dr. Benhalima said, the study still leaves open the SGA issue. “It wasn’t significant, but it’s still something we are worried about in the sense that we feel we need more data, especially in the long-term for the offspring health ... You really need to follow them for 10 years or longer to see an effect.”

So for now, Dr. Benhalima said that she wouldn’t use metformin as a first-line treatment for gestational diabetes. “Normally if lifestyle isn’t enough we will still start insulin ... Another issue is why would you offer everybody medical treatment when pregnancy outcomes can be met with lifestyle alone?”

Then again, she added, “of course metformin is easier than an injection. Treatment satisfaction is improved, and the cost is less.”
 

Primary outcome didn’t differ, but study findings point toward metformin benefit

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at two sites in Ireland, with 510 individuals (535 gestational diabetes pregnancies) enrolled between June 2017 and September 2022. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum 2,500 mg) at the time of gestational diabetes diagnosis and continued until delivery.

The primary outcome, a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose ≥ 5.1 mmol/L at gestation weeks 32 or 38, did not differ significantly between the two groups, with risk ratio 0.89 (P = 0.13).

Insulin initiation occurred in 38.4% of the metformin and 51.1% of the placebo groups (relative risk, 0.75, P = .004). The amount of insulin required at the last assessment prior to delivery did not differ between the two groups (P = .17).

Mean fasting glucose was significantly lower with metformin vs. placebo at gestational week 32 (4.9 vs. 5.0 mmol/L; P = .03) and at gestational week 38 (4.5 vs 4.7 mmol/L; P < .001).

On average, those in the metformin group gained less weight between randomization and delivery (0.8 kg vs. 2.0 kg; P = .003).

Gestational week at delivery didn’t differ between the groups, both 39.1 weeks, nor did preterm births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation (9.2% metformin vs. 6.5% placebo; P = .33) or any other pregnancy-related complications.

More participants in the metformin group said that they would choose the drug compared with placebo (76.2% vs. 67.1%, P = .04).

Mean birth weight was lower in the metformin group compared with placebo, 3,393 g vs. 3,506 g (P = .005), with fewer weighing > 4,000 g (7.6% vs. 14.8%; P = .02) or being large for gestational age, i.e., above the 90th percentile (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P = .003).

Proportions of offspring that were SGA (less than 10th percentile) were 5.7% in the metformin group vs. 2.7% with placebo (P = .13).

There were no other significant differences in neonatal variables.

Dr. Dunne told this news organization that her group has recently received funding for long-term follow-up of the SGA offspring. “As other papers have pointed out, if there’s any hint of SGA that’s really important to follow up. So we’re now beginning our longitudinal follow up of the mother and infants to see if the small number that were SGA will in fact turn out to have an increase in body mass index and weight in their childhood and adolescent years.”

The trial was funded by the Health Review Board (HRB) of Ireland, coordinated by the HRB-Clinical Research Facility Galway, and sponsored by the University of Galway, Ireland. Metformin and matched placebo were provided by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (operating as EMD Serono in the United States), and blood glucose monitoring strips were provided by Ascensia.

Dr. Dunne reported nonfinancial support from Merck and matched placebo and nonfinancial support from Ascensia during the conduct of the study. Dr. Benhalima receives research funds from Flemish Research Fund, study medication from Novo Nordisk, and devices and unrestricted grants from Medtronic and Dexcom.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.