Shrabasti Bhattacharya

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Artificial intelligence (AI) boosts the screening rate for potentially blinding diabetes eye disorders in a diabetes clinic compared with referral to an eye care provider (ECP) in a racially and ethnically diverse youth population with diabetes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although early screening and treatment can prevent diabetic eye diseases (DEDs), many people with diabetes in the United States lack access to and knowledge about diabetic eye exams.
• The  trial included 164 patients aged 8-21 years (58% female, 35% Black, and 6% Hispanic) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with no known DED and no diabetic eye exam in the last 6 months.
• In a diabetes clinic, patients were randomly assigned to an AI diabetic eye exam (intervention arm) then and there or to standard of care, referred to an ECP with scripted educational material (control).
• Participants in the intervention arm underwent the 5- to 10-minute autonomous AI diabetic eye exam without pharmacologic dilation. The results were generated immediately as either “DED present” or “DED absent.”
• The primary outcome was the completion rate of documented diabetic eye exams within 6 months (“primary gap closure rate”), either by AI or going to the ECP. The secondary outcome was ECP follow-up by intervention participants with DED (intervention) and all control patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 6 months, all the participants (100%) in the intervention arm completed their diabetic eye exam, a primary care gap closure rate of 100% (95% CI, 96%-100%).
• The rate of primary care gap closure was significantly higher in the intervention vs control arm (100% vs 22%; P < .001).
• In the intervention arm, 64% of patients with DED followed up with an eye care provider within 6 months compared with a mere 22% participants in the control arm (P < .001).
• Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with autonomous AI, with 92.5% expressing satisfaction with the exam’s duration and 96% expressing satisfaction with the whole experience.

IN PRACTICE:

“Autonomous AI increases diabetic eye exam completion rates and closes this care gap in a racially and ethnically diverse population of youth with diabetes, compared to standard of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, which was led by Risa M. Wolf, MD, department of pediatrics, division of endocrinology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, was published online on January 11, 2024, in Nature Communications.

LIMITATIONS:

This study used autonomous AI in the youth although it’s not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged 21 years and younger. Some of the participants in this study were already familiar with autonomous AI diabetic eye exams, which might have contributed to their willingness to participate in the current study. The autonomous AI used in the study was shown to have a lack of racial and ethnic bias, but any AI bias caused by differences in retinal pigment has potential to increase rather than decrease health disparities.

DISCLOSURES:

The clinical trial was supported by the National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Diabetes Research Connection. Wolf, the lead author, declared receiving research support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Coauthor Michael D. Abramoff, MD, declared serving in various roles such as investor, director, and consultant for Digital Diagnostics Inc., as well as other ties with many sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are associated with a lower risk for sight-threatening retinopathy than other second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study including 3,544,383 patients with newly diagnosed T2D.
• During the 5-year study period, 159,965 patients were treated with SGLT2 inhibitors, 304,383 received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, 108,420 took pioglitazone, and 189,618 received sulfonylurea.
• The propensity score matching found 65,930 pairs of patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4 inhibitors, 93,760 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs pioglitazone, and 42,121 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs sulfonylurea.
• The main outcome was sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with at least two outpatient visits or one hospitalization or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

TAKEAWAY:

• SGLT2 inhibitors reduced sight-threatening retinopathy risk by 43% vs DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57), 38% vs sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.62), and 25% vs pioglitazone (aHR, 0.75; P < .001 for all).
• Similarly, the cumulative incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4i, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea (P < .001 for all).
• All three SGLT2 inhibitor treatments, namely, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin, were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea in reducing the risk for sight-threatening retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“SGLT2i treatments were as safe and effective in slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy as in lowering the risk for diabetic nephropathy in patients with T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, MD, a private practitioner from Taiwan, and was published online on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There were insufficient data regarding the participants’ alcohol use, physical activity, smoking status, and family history, which may have had an impact on the results.

The study mainly involved individuals of Taiwanese ethnicity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, the MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are associated with a lower risk for sight-threatening retinopathy than other second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study including 3,544,383 patients with newly diagnosed T2D.
• During the 5-year study period, 159,965 patients were treated with SGLT2 inhibitors, 304,383 received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, 108,420 took pioglitazone, and 189,618 received sulfonylurea.
• The propensity score matching found 65,930 pairs of patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4 inhibitors, 93,760 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs pioglitazone, and 42,121 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs sulfonylurea.
• The main outcome was sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with at least two outpatient visits or one hospitalization or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

TAKEAWAY:

• SGLT2 inhibitors reduced sight-threatening retinopathy risk by 43% vs DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57), 38% vs sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.62), and 25% vs pioglitazone (aHR, 0.75; P < .001 for all).
• Similarly, the cumulative incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4i, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea (P < .001 for all).
• All three SGLT2 inhibitor treatments, namely, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin, were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea in reducing the risk for sight-threatening retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“SGLT2i treatments were as safe and effective in slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy as in lowering the risk for diabetic nephropathy in patients with T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, MD, a private practitioner from Taiwan, and was published online on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There were insufficient data regarding the participants’ alcohol use, physical activity, smoking status, and family history, which may have had an impact on the results.

The study mainly involved individuals of Taiwanese ethnicity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, the MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are associated with a lower risk for sight-threatening retinopathy than other second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study including 3,544,383 patients with newly diagnosed T2D.
• During the 5-year study period, 159,965 patients were treated with SGLT2 inhibitors, 304,383 received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, 108,420 took pioglitazone, and 189,618 received sulfonylurea.
• The propensity score matching found 65,930 pairs of patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4 inhibitors, 93,760 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs pioglitazone, and 42,121 pairs treated with SGLT2 inhibitors vs sulfonylurea.
• The main outcome was sight-threatening retinopathy in patients with at least two outpatient visits or one hospitalization or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

TAKEAWAY:

• SGLT2 inhibitors reduced sight-threatening retinopathy risk by 43% vs DPP-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57), 38% vs sulfonylurea (aHR, 0.62), and 25% vs pioglitazone (aHR, 0.75; P < .001 for all).
• Similarly, the cumulative incidence of sight-threatening retinopathy was significantly lower with SGLT2 inhibitors vs DPP-4i, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea (P < .001 for all).
• All three SGLT2 inhibitor treatments, namely, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin, were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors, pioglitazone, or sulfonylurea in reducing the risk for sight-threatening retinopathy.

IN PRACTICE:

“SGLT2i treatments were as safe and effective in slowing the progression of diabetic retinopathy as in lowering the risk for diabetic nephropathy in patients with T2D,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, MD, a private practitioner from Taiwan, and was published online on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There were insufficient data regarding the participants’ alcohol use, physical activity, smoking status, and family history, which may have had an impact on the results.

The study mainly involved individuals of Taiwanese ethnicity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, the MOST Clinical Trial Consortium for Stroke, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis showed that all doses of tirzepatide, a novel twincretin molecule, reduced albuminuria levels without affecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials compared the effects of tirzepatide and control treatment (placebo or any active comparator) on albuminuria levels and renal function in patients with T2D.
• The pooled data included 6226 patients with T2D who received tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) and 3307 participants in the control group who received placebo, semaglutide, or insulin.
• The primary outcome was the difference in absolute change in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline between the tirzepatide and control groups.
• The secondary efficacy endpoint was the comparative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, tirzepatide reduced UACR by ~27% (mean difference [MD], −26.9%; P < .001) compared with controls.
• The reduction in UACR was consistent across all tirzepatide doses (5 mg: MD, −23.12%; 10 mg: MD, −27.87%; 15 mg: MD, −27.15).
• Benefits of tirzepatide were even more pronounced in patients with increased albuminuria levels (UACR ≥ 30 mg/g) at baseline (MD, −41.42%; P < .001) than in controls.
• However, tirzepatide vs control treatment did not have a significant effect on eGFR levels (P = .46), which indicated no negative effect of tirzepatide on renal function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tirzepatide seems to be a ‘rising star’ for the prevention and delaying of chronic kidney disease and related, surrogate renal outcomes in patients with T2DM,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paschalis Karakasis, MD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, led this study, which was published online December 20, 2023, in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Bias may have come from the open-label design in the included randomized controlled trials. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the effect of tirzepatide on chronic kidney disease pathogenesis are speculative.

DISCLOSURES:

The paper did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis showed that all doses of tirzepatide, a novel twincretin molecule, reduced albuminuria levels without affecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials compared the effects of tirzepatide and control treatment (placebo or any active comparator) on albuminuria levels and renal function in patients with T2D.
• The pooled data included 6226 patients with T2D who received tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) and 3307 participants in the control group who received placebo, semaglutide, or insulin.
• The primary outcome was the difference in absolute change in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline between the tirzepatide and control groups.
• The secondary efficacy endpoint was the comparative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, tirzepatide reduced UACR by ~27% (mean difference [MD], −26.9%; P < .001) compared with controls.
• The reduction in UACR was consistent across all tirzepatide doses (5 mg: MD, −23.12%; 10 mg: MD, −27.87%; 15 mg: MD, −27.15).
• Benefits of tirzepatide were even more pronounced in patients with increased albuminuria levels (UACR ≥ 30 mg/g) at baseline (MD, −41.42%; P < .001) than in controls.
• However, tirzepatide vs control treatment did not have a significant effect on eGFR levels (P = .46), which indicated no negative effect of tirzepatide on renal function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tirzepatide seems to be a ‘rising star’ for the prevention and delaying of chronic kidney disease and related, surrogate renal outcomes in patients with T2DM,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paschalis Karakasis, MD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, led this study, which was published online December 20, 2023, in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Bias may have come from the open-label design in the included randomized controlled trials. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the effect of tirzepatide on chronic kidney disease pathogenesis are speculative.

DISCLOSURES:

The paper did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A meta-analysis showed that all doses of tirzepatide, a novel twincretin molecule, reduced albuminuria levels without affecting renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials compared the effects of tirzepatide and control treatment (placebo or any active comparator) on albuminuria levels and renal function in patients with T2D.
• The pooled data included 6226 patients with T2D who received tirzepatide (5, 10, or 15 mg) and 3307 participants in the control group who received placebo, semaglutide, or insulin.
• The primary outcome was the difference in absolute change in urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline between the tirzepatide and control groups.
• The secondary efficacy endpoint was the comparative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, tirzepatide reduced UACR by ~27% (mean difference [MD], −26.9%; P < .001) compared with controls.
• The reduction in UACR was consistent across all tirzepatide doses (5 mg: MD, −23.12%; 10 mg: MD, −27.87%; 15 mg: MD, −27.15).
• Benefits of tirzepatide were even more pronounced in patients with increased albuminuria levels (UACR ≥ 30 mg/g) at baseline (MD, −41.42%; P < .001) than in controls.
• However, tirzepatide vs control treatment did not have a significant effect on eGFR levels (P = .46), which indicated no negative effect of tirzepatide on renal function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Tirzepatide seems to be a ‘rising star’ for the prevention and delaying of chronic kidney disease and related, surrogate renal outcomes in patients with T2DM,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Paschalis Karakasis, MD, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, led this study, which was published online December 20, 2023, in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

There was significant heterogeneity between the studies. Bias may have come from the open-label design in the included randomized controlled trials. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the effect of tirzepatide on chronic kidney disease pathogenesis are speculative.

DISCLOSURES:

The paper did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) nearly doubles future chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk, irrespective of subsequent diabetes and hypertension, a study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A nationwide, cohort study was based on data from the Danish Medical Birth Register and included 697,622 women who gave birth between 1997 and 2018.
• Of all study participants, 3.4% reported GDM in at least one pregnancy, and 12.8% of women with GDM received insulin, a proxy for a more severe metabolic dysfunction.
• The women were followed up for a median of 11.9 years.
• Researchers studied CKD and acute kidney disease as the outcomes of interest, the mediating effects of subsequent diabetes and hypertension on future CKD, and how GDM severity affected later risk for kidney disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM showed significantly higher CKD risk than those without GDM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21).
• Women who received insulin during pregnancy due to severe metabolic dysfunction but did not develop subsequent diabetes had a proportionally higher risk for CKD (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.39-3.97).
• Women with GDM who went on to develop diabetes or hypertension faced even higher risks for CKD, suggesting that preventing diabetes and hypertension after GDM may reduce the development of CKD.
• GDM did not affect the risk for acute kidney disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with severe metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy constitute a high-risk group regarding future CKD,” the authors wrote. “The significantly elevated CKD risk was observed from 2 years after pregnancy and beyond.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Maria Hornstrup Christensen, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, was published online on December 15 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

GDM may be underdiagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes may be misclassified as GDM. The proxies of GDM and insulin treatment may not have captured the increasing severity of metabolic dysfunction. The prevalence of insulin treatment was lower than expected, perhaps due to the practice of providing a patient’s first insulin pen without a prescription and perhaps not recording it in a patient’s health record.

DISCLOSURES:

This work received financial support from the University of Southern Denmark, the Region of Southern Denmark, and the Danish Diabetes Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) nearly doubles future chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk, irrespective of subsequent diabetes and hypertension, a study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A nationwide, cohort study was based on data from the Danish Medical Birth Register and included 697,622 women who gave birth between 1997 and 2018.
• Of all study participants, 3.4% reported GDM in at least one pregnancy, and 12.8% of women with GDM received insulin, a proxy for a more severe metabolic dysfunction.
• The women were followed up for a median of 11.9 years.
• Researchers studied CKD and acute kidney disease as the outcomes of interest, the mediating effects of subsequent diabetes and hypertension on future CKD, and how GDM severity affected later risk for kidney disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM showed significantly higher CKD risk than those without GDM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21).
• Women who received insulin during pregnancy due to severe metabolic dysfunction but did not develop subsequent diabetes had a proportionally higher risk for CKD (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.39-3.97).
• Women with GDM who went on to develop diabetes or hypertension faced even higher risks for CKD, suggesting that preventing diabetes and hypertension after GDM may reduce the development of CKD.
• GDM did not affect the risk for acute kidney disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with severe metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy constitute a high-risk group regarding future CKD,” the authors wrote. “The significantly elevated CKD risk was observed from 2 years after pregnancy and beyond.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Maria Hornstrup Christensen, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, was published online on December 15 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

GDM may be underdiagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes may be misclassified as GDM. The proxies of GDM and insulin treatment may not have captured the increasing severity of metabolic dysfunction. The prevalence of insulin treatment was lower than expected, perhaps due to the practice of providing a patient’s first insulin pen without a prescription and perhaps not recording it in a patient’s health record.

DISCLOSURES:

This work received financial support from the University of Southern Denmark, the Region of Southern Denmark, and the Danish Diabetes Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) nearly doubles future chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk, irrespective of subsequent diabetes and hypertension, a study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A nationwide, cohort study was based on data from the Danish Medical Birth Register and included 697,622 women who gave birth between 1997 and 2018.
• Of all study participants, 3.4% reported GDM in at least one pregnancy, and 12.8% of women with GDM received insulin, a proxy for a more severe metabolic dysfunction.
• The women were followed up for a median of 11.9 years.
• Researchers studied CKD and acute kidney disease as the outcomes of interest, the mediating effects of subsequent diabetes and hypertension on future CKD, and how GDM severity affected later risk for kidney disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Women with GDM showed significantly higher CKD risk than those without GDM (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21).
• Women who received insulin during pregnancy due to severe metabolic dysfunction but did not develop subsequent diabetes had a proportionally higher risk for CKD (aHR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.39-3.97).
• Women with GDM who went on to develop diabetes or hypertension faced even higher risks for CKD, suggesting that preventing diabetes and hypertension after GDM may reduce the development of CKD.
• GDM did not affect the risk for acute kidney disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women with severe metabolic dysfunction during pregnancy constitute a high-risk group regarding future CKD,” the authors wrote. “The significantly elevated CKD risk was observed from 2 years after pregnancy and beyond.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Maria Hornstrup Christensen, of Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, was published online on December 15 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

GDM may be underdiagnosed, and undiagnosed diabetes may be misclassified as GDM. The proxies of GDM and insulin treatment may not have captured the increasing severity of metabolic dysfunction. The prevalence of insulin treatment was lower than expected, perhaps due to the practice of providing a patient’s first insulin pen without a prescription and perhaps not recording it in a patient’s health record.

DISCLOSURES:

This work received financial support from the University of Southern Denmark, the Region of Southern Denmark, and the Danish Diabetes Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel-aspirin given within 72 hours of a mild ischemic stroke or a high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) shows a greater risk reduction for new stroke than aspirin alone, although with a higher bleeding risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INSPIRES, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involved patients with mild ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA of presumed atherosclerotic cause who had not undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
• A total of 6100 patients were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or matching clopidogrel placebo plus aspirin within 72 hours after symptom onset.
• The occurrence of any new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) within 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome.
• The primary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding, also assessed within 90 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 24 hours of symptom onset, 12.8% of patients were assigned to each treatment group, and the remaining 87.2% were assigned within the time window of 24-72 hours.
• (7.3% vs 9.2%; marginal estimated hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P =.008).
• The risk of a composite cardiovascular event and ischemic stroke were also 20%-25% lower with aspirin-clopidogrel combo vs aspirin alone.
• Moderate to severe bleeding was low in both groups (<1%), but the risk was double in patients who received DAPT vs aspirin alone (HR, 2.08; P =.03).

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Anthony S. Kim, MD from the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, commented, “The current trial provides evidence to support expanding the time window for dual antiplatelet therapy to 72 hours.” He also warned against administering DAPT to “patients with heightened bleeding risks, such as those with a history of cerebral or systemic hemorrhage.”

SOURCE:

Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, who held positions in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, and several other institutions, was the corresponding author of this study. This study was published online December 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

• Patients with stroke of presumed cardioembolic origin, those with moderate or severe stroke, and those who had undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy were excluded from this study.
• Of the enrolled participants, 98.5% belonged to the Han Chinese ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key R&D Program of China, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or contracts or serving as consultants in various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel-aspirin given within 72 hours of a mild ischemic stroke or a high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) shows a greater risk reduction for new stroke than aspirin alone, although with a higher bleeding risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INSPIRES, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involved patients with mild ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA of presumed atherosclerotic cause who had not undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
• A total of 6100 patients were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or matching clopidogrel placebo plus aspirin within 72 hours after symptom onset.
• The occurrence of any new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) within 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome.
• The primary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding, also assessed within 90 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 24 hours of symptom onset, 12.8% of patients were assigned to each treatment group, and the remaining 87.2% were assigned within the time window of 24-72 hours.
• (7.3% vs 9.2%; marginal estimated hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P =.008).
• The risk of a composite cardiovascular event and ischemic stroke were also 20%-25% lower with aspirin-clopidogrel combo vs aspirin alone.
• Moderate to severe bleeding was low in both groups (<1%), but the risk was double in patients who received DAPT vs aspirin alone (HR, 2.08; P =.03).

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Anthony S. Kim, MD from the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, commented, “The current trial provides evidence to support expanding the time window for dual antiplatelet therapy to 72 hours.” He also warned against administering DAPT to “patients with heightened bleeding risks, such as those with a history of cerebral or systemic hemorrhage.”

SOURCE:

Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, who held positions in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, and several other institutions, was the corresponding author of this study. This study was published online December 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

• Patients with stroke of presumed cardioembolic origin, those with moderate or severe stroke, and those who had undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy were excluded from this study.
• Of the enrolled participants, 98.5% belonged to the Han Chinese ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key R&D Program of China, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or contracts or serving as consultants in various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel-aspirin given within 72 hours of a mild ischemic stroke or a high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) shows a greater risk reduction for new stroke than aspirin alone, although with a higher bleeding risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INSPIRES, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, involved patients with mild ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA of presumed atherosclerotic cause who had not undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
• A total of 6100 patients were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel plus aspirin or matching clopidogrel placebo plus aspirin within 72 hours after symptom onset.
• The occurrence of any new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) within 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome.
• The primary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding, also assessed within 90 days.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 24 hours of symptom onset, 12.8% of patients were assigned to each treatment group, and the remaining 87.2% were assigned within the time window of 24-72 hours.
• (7.3% vs 9.2%; marginal estimated hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; P =.008).
• The risk of a composite cardiovascular event and ischemic stroke were also 20%-25% lower with aspirin-clopidogrel combo vs aspirin alone.
• Moderate to severe bleeding was low in both groups (<1%), but the risk was double in patients who received DAPT vs aspirin alone (HR, 2.08; P =.03).

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Anthony S. Kim, MD from the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, commented, “The current trial provides evidence to support expanding the time window for dual antiplatelet therapy to 72 hours.” He also warned against administering DAPT to “patients with heightened bleeding risks, such as those with a history of cerebral or systemic hemorrhage.”

SOURCE:

Yilong Wang, MD, PhD, who held positions in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, and several other institutions, was the corresponding author of this study. This study was published online December 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

• Patients with stroke of presumed cardioembolic origin, those with moderate or severe stroke, and those who had undergone thrombolysis or thrombectomy were excluded from this study.
• Of the enrolled participants, 98.5% belonged to the Han Chinese ethnic group.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key R&D Program of China, and other sources. Some authors declared receiving grants or contracts or serving as consultants in various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with diabetes who received insulin may have an increased risk for serious hypoglycemic events in extreme heat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Thermoregulatory response is often compromised in older adults with diabetes, making them vulnerable to extreme heat.
• Researchers evaluated the association between ambient heat and risk for hypoglycemia in about 2 million and about 283,000 patients aged 65-100 years with diabetes from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, who received insulin.
• A serious hypoglycemic event was defined as a primary emergency department (ED) visit or an unplanned inpatient admission for hypoglycemia from June 1 to September 30.
• Medication use was determined by at least one prescription dispensing insulin within 90 days of the index event.
• The average heat index (HI), a combination of ambient temperature and humidity exposure, was calculated by ZIP code and grouped into percentiles: ≥ 99th, 95-98th, 85-94th, 76-84th, 25-74th, and < 25th.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among insulin users overall, 32,461 and 10,162 older adults from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, experienced a hypoglycemic event.
• The risk for a serious hypoglycemic event was about 40% higher among insulin users on days with a HI of ≥ 99th percentile than 25-74th percentile (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.48).
• Conversely, on days with a low HI (< 25th percentile), the risk for hypoglycemia among insulin users decreased.
• No substantial differences were observed in the risk for hypoglycemic events and HI by climate region in either country, such as between the US Northeast and Southwest.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding of elevated risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits in older adults using insulin and exposed to extreme heat underscores the need for patients and providers to be aware and cautious that extreme heat may increase the risk of hypoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Aayush Visaria, Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and coauthors. The study was published online on December 7, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The individuals with hypoglycemia were older, were more frequently non-Hispanic Black in the United States, and had more comorbidities, so caution should be used before the results can be generalized to broader populations.
• The authors were unable to capture variables that can alter the risk for serious hypoglycemia, such as outdoor activity, exercise, and diet.
• Prescriptions may not reflect actual insulin use and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with diabetes who received insulin may have an increased risk for serious hypoglycemic events in extreme heat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Thermoregulatory response is often compromised in older adults with diabetes, making them vulnerable to extreme heat.
• Researchers evaluated the association between ambient heat and risk for hypoglycemia in about 2 million and about 283,000 patients aged 65-100 years with diabetes from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, who received insulin.
• A serious hypoglycemic event was defined as a primary emergency department (ED) visit or an unplanned inpatient admission for hypoglycemia from June 1 to September 30.
• Medication use was determined by at least one prescription dispensing insulin within 90 days of the index event.
• The average heat index (HI), a combination of ambient temperature and humidity exposure, was calculated by ZIP code and grouped into percentiles: ≥ 99th, 95-98th, 85-94th, 76-84th, 25-74th, and < 25th.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among insulin users overall, 32,461 and 10,162 older adults from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, experienced a hypoglycemic event.
• The risk for a serious hypoglycemic event was about 40% higher among insulin users on days with a HI of ≥ 99th percentile than 25-74th percentile (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.48).
• Conversely, on days with a low HI (< 25th percentile), the risk for hypoglycemia among insulin users decreased.
• No substantial differences were observed in the risk for hypoglycemic events and HI by climate region in either country, such as between the US Northeast and Southwest.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding of elevated risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits in older adults using insulin and exposed to extreme heat underscores the need for patients and providers to be aware and cautious that extreme heat may increase the risk of hypoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Aayush Visaria, Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and coauthors. The study was published online on December 7, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The individuals with hypoglycemia were older, were more frequently non-Hispanic Black in the United States, and had more comorbidities, so caution should be used before the results can be generalized to broader populations.
• The authors were unable to capture variables that can alter the risk for serious hypoglycemia, such as outdoor activity, exercise, and diet.
• Prescriptions may not reflect actual insulin use and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) with diabetes who received insulin may have an increased risk for serious hypoglycemic events in extreme heat.

METHODOLOGY:

• Thermoregulatory response is often compromised in older adults with diabetes, making them vulnerable to extreme heat.
• Researchers evaluated the association between ambient heat and risk for hypoglycemia in about 2 million and about 283,000 patients aged 65-100 years with diabetes from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, who received insulin.
• A serious hypoglycemic event was defined as a primary emergency department (ED) visit or an unplanned inpatient admission for hypoglycemia from June 1 to September 30.
• Medication use was determined by at least one prescription dispensing insulin within 90 days of the index event.
• The average heat index (HI), a combination of ambient temperature and humidity exposure, was calculated by ZIP code and grouped into percentiles: ≥ 99th, 95-98th, 85-94th, 76-84th, 25-74th, and < 25th.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among insulin users overall, 32,461 and 10,162 older adults from the United States and Taiwan, respectively, experienced a hypoglycemic event.
• The risk for a serious hypoglycemic event was about 40% higher among insulin users on days with a HI of ≥ 99th percentile than 25-74th percentile (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.28-1.48).
• Conversely, on days with a low HI (< 25th percentile), the risk for hypoglycemia among insulin users decreased.
• No substantial differences were observed in the risk for hypoglycemic events and HI by climate region in either country, such as between the US Northeast and Southwest.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding of elevated risk of hypoglycemia-related ED visits in older adults using insulin and exposed to extreme heat underscores the need for patients and providers to be aware and cautious that extreme heat may increase the risk of hypoglycemia,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by first author Aayush Visaria, Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and coauthors. The study was published online on December 7, 2023, in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

• The individuals with hypoglycemia were older, were more frequently non-Hispanic Black in the United States, and had more comorbidities, so caution should be used before the results can be generalized to broader populations.
• The authors were unable to capture variables that can alter the risk for serious hypoglycemia, such as outdoor activity, exercise, and diet.
• Prescriptions may not reflect actual insulin use and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.