Clinical Endocrinology News

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) has issued its first-ever official guidelines addressing the use of advanced technologies in the management of people with diabetes.

They were presented on May 28 at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Previous AACE guidance on the clinical use of insulin pumps and CGM over the past decade has been published in the form of consensus or position statements rather than official evidence-based guidelines, task force cochair George Grunberger, MD, of the Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., explained.

“There’s never really been, until now, hardcore evidence, [with] peer-reviewed, quality trials published in the literature to go after the evidence that is required for guidelines. ... This is not an opinion piece or position statement.”

The problem with that strict approach to “guidelines” is how quickly the diabetes technology field is evolving, he acknowledged. “It’s frustrating because we know what’s [coming up], but we can’t put it in a guideline because it hasn’t been published yet.”

In an AACE podcast, Dr. Grunberger said the guidelines will likely become a “living” document, along the lines of the American Diabetes Association’s annual Standards of Care, as “any cutoff date is arbitrary. More and more papers will be published on these technologies. ... This is certainly not a static field.”

In the meantime, task force cochair and author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist, said she hopes the guidelines will help to reduce insurance company barriers to use of the currently available technologies.

“I am very hopeful that these guidelines will also encourage payers to change their stance. And I think that we as a community can continue to advocate and inform them of these guidelines so they can appropriately change their coverage practices,” added Dr. Sherr, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Recommendations address CGM, pumps, and connected systems

In the guidelines, CGM is “strongly recommended for all persons with diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy, defined as three or more injections of insulin per day or the use of an insulin pump.” For those with diabetes who use CGM, “priority metrics” include a “time in range” of greater than 70% from 14 days of active use. Targets for mean glucose should be individualized, with glycemic variability 36% or lower.

Further specific CGM target metrics are given for people with type 1 diabetes, older/high risk individuals, and for pregnant women. The recommendations align with those issued in a 2019 joint consensus statement on CGM time-in-range endorsed by several organizations, including AACE.    

In response to an audience question about whether AACE is advising that time-in-range replace A1c for glycemia assessment, Dr. Sherr responded: “I think currently we’re not in a position where we can completely replace A1c with time in range. However, I’m hopeful that in future years we’ll see further data gathered ... to allow for that recommendation to occur.”

For now, she said, “What we really want to hone in on in the guidelines is that time-in-range and use of CGM truly allow clinicians to better understand how to optimize care for their persons with diabetes. It gives us a better picture. It’s not just a number of whether we’re hitting target. It tells us whether we need to attack time above range or time below range. So we really think it’s critical for clinical care.”

The document also provides specifics about real-time versus intermittently scanned CGM and use of diagnostic/professional CGM.

The “insulin delivery technologies” section covers use of connected pens, insulin pumps without CGM, insulin pumps with separate CGM, and the more advanced combined insulin pump-CGM systems including those with low-glucose suspend, predictive low-glucose suspend, and hybrid closed-loops (sometimes called the artificial pancreas).

In general, these automated insulin delivery systems (artificial pancreas), “are strongly recommended for all persons with [type 1 diabetes], since their use has been shown to increase time in range, especially in the overnight period, without causing an increased risk of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Sherr observed.
 

Other tech topics: Apps, telemedicine, and safety

The new guidelines say that “clinically validated” smartphone apps should be recommended to help teach or reinforce diabetes self-management skills and provide support and encouragement for healthy behaviors around food and exercise.

Dr. Grunberger pointed out: “As we know, there are tons of apps out there, and patients are using them. The problem is that very few of them have actually been validated in clinical trials in published peer-reviewed [journals].”

He recommended a joint statement on diabetes apps from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that was initially discussed at the 2019 EASD meeting, as reported by this news organization, and subsequently published in January 2020 in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.

“Telemedicine, including periodic phone calls, smartphone-web interactions ... by health care professionals ... is strongly recommended to treat persons with diabetes, provide diabetes education, remotely monitor glucose and/or insulin data to indicate the need for therapy adjustments, and improve diabetes-related outcomes/control with better engagement,” the document says.

Safety concerns addressed include the issue of certain medications interfering with CGM [readings] ... including acetaminophen, high-dose vitamin C, and hydroxyurea, as well as cautions about what to do in the event of device malfunction and assessing that the patient is sufficiently trained in proper device use. Criteria for insulin pump discontinuation are also given.
 

Implementation: Who will be prescribing? ‘This is not for amateurs’

A final section on implementation recommends that “initiation and use of diabetes technology should be implemented by health care professionals who are trained, committed, and experienced to prescribe and direct the use of these tools. Clinicians should have the infrastructure to support the needs of persons with diabetes using the technology.”

Dr. Grunberger commented: “I think the key is going to be who should be doing this? What is the role of a clinical endocrinologist in the future? What is our responsibility, [since] we don’t have the manpower and womanpower to take care of all these people as these technologies advance? It’s our responsibility to provide these hopefully valued recommendations as a resource for those who want to know more about it.”

However, he noted, “This is not for amateurs. If you want to actually use this in your practice, you need the infrastructure, the expertise, the training, the dedication, and the energy to be there for the patients all the time ... This clinical practice guideline is a foundation.”

Dr. Sherr added: “To me, it’s really thinking about ... changing our mindset from who is an appropriate candidate to who can benefit and how vast a group that entails ... I’m hopeful that we will see more technology use through continued conversations with our patients with diabetes, and hopefully through more clinicians being excited to be part of this revolution.”

Dr. Grunberger has reported being on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott. Dr. Sherr has reported being a consultant and speaker for Lilly and Medtronic Diabetes, a consultant for Insulet and Sanofi, and on advisory boards for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, JDRF T1D fund, and Medtronic.

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

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) has issued its first-ever official guidelines addressing the use of advanced technologies in the management of people with diabetes.

They were presented on May 28 at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Previous AACE guidance on the clinical use of insulin pumps and CGM over the past decade has been published in the form of consensus or position statements rather than official evidence-based guidelines, task force cochair George Grunberger, MD, of the Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., explained.

“There’s never really been, until now, hardcore evidence, [with] peer-reviewed, quality trials published in the literature to go after the evidence that is required for guidelines. ... This is not an opinion piece or position statement.”

The problem with that strict approach to “guidelines” is how quickly the diabetes technology field is evolving, he acknowledged. “It’s frustrating because we know what’s [coming up], but we can’t put it in a guideline because it hasn’t been published yet.”

In an AACE podcast, Dr. Grunberger said the guidelines will likely become a “living” document, along the lines of the American Diabetes Association’s annual Standards of Care, as “any cutoff date is arbitrary. More and more papers will be published on these technologies. ... This is certainly not a static field.”

In the meantime, task force cochair and author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist, said she hopes the guidelines will help to reduce insurance company barriers to use of the currently available technologies.

“I am very hopeful that these guidelines will also encourage payers to change their stance. And I think that we as a community can continue to advocate and inform them of these guidelines so they can appropriately change their coverage practices,” added Dr. Sherr, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Recommendations address CGM, pumps, and connected systems

In the guidelines, CGM is “strongly recommended for all persons with diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy, defined as three or more injections of insulin per day or the use of an insulin pump.” For those with diabetes who use CGM, “priority metrics” include a “time in range” of greater than 70% from 14 days of active use. Targets for mean glucose should be individualized, with glycemic variability 36% or lower.

Further specific CGM target metrics are given for people with type 1 diabetes, older/high risk individuals, and for pregnant women. The recommendations align with those issued in a 2019 joint consensus statement on CGM time-in-range endorsed by several organizations, including AACE.    

In response to an audience question about whether AACE is advising that time-in-range replace A1c for glycemia assessment, Dr. Sherr responded: “I think currently we’re not in a position where we can completely replace A1c with time in range. However, I’m hopeful that in future years we’ll see further data gathered ... to allow for that recommendation to occur.”

For now, she said, “What we really want to hone in on in the guidelines is that time-in-range and use of CGM truly allow clinicians to better understand how to optimize care for their persons with diabetes. It gives us a better picture. It’s not just a number of whether we’re hitting target. It tells us whether we need to attack time above range or time below range. So we really think it’s critical for clinical care.”

The document also provides specifics about real-time versus intermittently scanned CGM and use of diagnostic/professional CGM.

The “insulin delivery technologies” section covers use of connected pens, insulin pumps without CGM, insulin pumps with separate CGM, and the more advanced combined insulin pump-CGM systems including those with low-glucose suspend, predictive low-glucose suspend, and hybrid closed-loops (sometimes called the artificial pancreas).

In general, these automated insulin delivery systems (artificial pancreas), “are strongly recommended for all persons with [type 1 diabetes], since their use has been shown to increase time in range, especially in the overnight period, without causing an increased risk of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Sherr observed.
 

Other tech topics: Apps, telemedicine, and safety

The new guidelines say that “clinically validated” smartphone apps should be recommended to help teach or reinforce diabetes self-management skills and provide support and encouragement for healthy behaviors around food and exercise.

Dr. Grunberger pointed out: “As we know, there are tons of apps out there, and patients are using them. The problem is that very few of them have actually been validated in clinical trials in published peer-reviewed [journals].”

He recommended a joint statement on diabetes apps from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that was initially discussed at the 2019 EASD meeting, as reported by this news organization, and subsequently published in January 2020 in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.

“Telemedicine, including periodic phone calls, smartphone-web interactions ... by health care professionals ... is strongly recommended to treat persons with diabetes, provide diabetes education, remotely monitor glucose and/or insulin data to indicate the need for therapy adjustments, and improve diabetes-related outcomes/control with better engagement,” the document says.

Safety concerns addressed include the issue of certain medications interfering with CGM [readings] ... including acetaminophen, high-dose vitamin C, and hydroxyurea, as well as cautions about what to do in the event of device malfunction and assessing that the patient is sufficiently trained in proper device use. Criteria for insulin pump discontinuation are also given.
 

Implementation: Who will be prescribing? ‘This is not for amateurs’

A final section on implementation recommends that “initiation and use of diabetes technology should be implemented by health care professionals who are trained, committed, and experienced to prescribe and direct the use of these tools. Clinicians should have the infrastructure to support the needs of persons with diabetes using the technology.”

Dr. Grunberger commented: “I think the key is going to be who should be doing this? What is the role of a clinical endocrinologist in the future? What is our responsibility, [since] we don’t have the manpower and womanpower to take care of all these people as these technologies advance? It’s our responsibility to provide these hopefully valued recommendations as a resource for those who want to know more about it.”

However, he noted, “This is not for amateurs. If you want to actually use this in your practice, you need the infrastructure, the expertise, the training, the dedication, and the energy to be there for the patients all the time ... This clinical practice guideline is a foundation.”

Dr. Sherr added: “To me, it’s really thinking about ... changing our mindset from who is an appropriate candidate to who can benefit and how vast a group that entails ... I’m hopeful that we will see more technology use through continued conversations with our patients with diabetes, and hopefully through more clinicians being excited to be part of this revolution.”

Dr. Grunberger has reported being on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott. Dr. Sherr has reported being a consultant and speaker for Lilly and Medtronic Diabetes, a consultant for Insulet and Sanofi, and on advisory boards for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, JDRF T1D fund, and Medtronic.

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

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) has issued its first-ever official guidelines addressing the use of advanced technologies in the management of people with diabetes.

They were presented on May 28 at the annual scientific & clinical congress of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and simultaneously published in Endocrine Practice.

Previous AACE guidance on the clinical use of insulin pumps and CGM over the past decade has been published in the form of consensus or position statements rather than official evidence-based guidelines, task force cochair George Grunberger, MD, of the Grunberger Diabetes Institute, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., explained.

“There’s never really been, until now, hardcore evidence, [with] peer-reviewed, quality trials published in the literature to go after the evidence that is required for guidelines. ... This is not an opinion piece or position statement.”

The problem with that strict approach to “guidelines” is how quickly the diabetes technology field is evolving, he acknowledged. “It’s frustrating because we know what’s [coming up], but we can’t put it in a guideline because it hasn’t been published yet.”

In an AACE podcast, Dr. Grunberger said the guidelines will likely become a “living” document, along the lines of the American Diabetes Association’s annual Standards of Care, as “any cutoff date is arbitrary. More and more papers will be published on these technologies. ... This is certainly not a static field.”

In the meantime, task force cochair and author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, a pediatric endocrinologist, said she hopes the guidelines will help to reduce insurance company barriers to use of the currently available technologies.

“I am very hopeful that these guidelines will also encourage payers to change their stance. And I think that we as a community can continue to advocate and inform them of these guidelines so they can appropriately change their coverage practices,” added Dr. Sherr, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
 

Recommendations address CGM, pumps, and connected systems

In the guidelines, CGM is “strongly recommended for all persons with diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy, defined as three or more injections of insulin per day or the use of an insulin pump.” For those with diabetes who use CGM, “priority metrics” include a “time in range” of greater than 70% from 14 days of active use. Targets for mean glucose should be individualized, with glycemic variability 36% or lower.

Further specific CGM target metrics are given for people with type 1 diabetes, older/high risk individuals, and for pregnant women. The recommendations align with those issued in a 2019 joint consensus statement on CGM time-in-range endorsed by several organizations, including AACE.    

In response to an audience question about whether AACE is advising that time-in-range replace A1c for glycemia assessment, Dr. Sherr responded: “I think currently we’re not in a position where we can completely replace A1c with time in range. However, I’m hopeful that in future years we’ll see further data gathered ... to allow for that recommendation to occur.”

For now, she said, “What we really want to hone in on in the guidelines is that time-in-range and use of CGM truly allow clinicians to better understand how to optimize care for their persons with diabetes. It gives us a better picture. It’s not just a number of whether we’re hitting target. It tells us whether we need to attack time above range or time below range. So we really think it’s critical for clinical care.”

The document also provides specifics about real-time versus intermittently scanned CGM and use of diagnostic/professional CGM.

The “insulin delivery technologies” section covers use of connected pens, insulin pumps without CGM, insulin pumps with separate CGM, and the more advanced combined insulin pump-CGM systems including those with low-glucose suspend, predictive low-glucose suspend, and hybrid closed-loops (sometimes called the artificial pancreas).

In general, these automated insulin delivery systems (artificial pancreas), “are strongly recommended for all persons with [type 1 diabetes], since their use has been shown to increase time in range, especially in the overnight period, without causing an increased risk of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Sherr observed.
 

Other tech topics: Apps, telemedicine, and safety

The new guidelines say that “clinically validated” smartphone apps should be recommended to help teach or reinforce diabetes self-management skills and provide support and encouragement for healthy behaviors around food and exercise.

Dr. Grunberger pointed out: “As we know, there are tons of apps out there, and patients are using them. The problem is that very few of them have actually been validated in clinical trials in published peer-reviewed [journals].”

He recommended a joint statement on diabetes apps from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes that was initially discussed at the 2019 EASD meeting, as reported by this news organization, and subsequently published in January 2020 in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.

“Telemedicine, including periodic phone calls, smartphone-web interactions ... by health care professionals ... is strongly recommended to treat persons with diabetes, provide diabetes education, remotely monitor glucose and/or insulin data to indicate the need for therapy adjustments, and improve diabetes-related outcomes/control with better engagement,” the document says.

Safety concerns addressed include the issue of certain medications interfering with CGM [readings] ... including acetaminophen, high-dose vitamin C, and hydroxyurea, as well as cautions about what to do in the event of device malfunction and assessing that the patient is sufficiently trained in proper device use. Criteria for insulin pump discontinuation are also given.
 

Implementation: Who will be prescribing? ‘This is not for amateurs’

A final section on implementation recommends that “initiation and use of diabetes technology should be implemented by health care professionals who are trained, committed, and experienced to prescribe and direct the use of these tools. Clinicians should have the infrastructure to support the needs of persons with diabetes using the technology.”

Dr. Grunberger commented: “I think the key is going to be who should be doing this? What is the role of a clinical endocrinologist in the future? What is our responsibility, [since] we don’t have the manpower and womanpower to take care of all these people as these technologies advance? It’s our responsibility to provide these hopefully valued recommendations as a resource for those who want to know more about it.”

However, he noted, “This is not for amateurs. If you want to actually use this in your practice, you need the infrastructure, the expertise, the training, the dedication, and the energy to be there for the patients all the time ... This clinical practice guideline is a foundation.”

Dr. Sherr added: “To me, it’s really thinking about ... changing our mindset from who is an appropriate candidate to who can benefit and how vast a group that entails ... I’m hopeful that we will see more technology use through continued conversations with our patients with diabetes, and hopefully through more clinicians being excited to be part of this revolution.”

Dr. Grunberger has reported being on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott. Dr. Sherr has reported being a consultant and speaker for Lilly and Medtronic Diabetes, a consultant for Insulet and Sanofi, and on advisory boards for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Insulet, JDRF T1D fund, and Medtronic.

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

Combining minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty with a weekly injection of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) leads to significantly greater weight loss than ESG alone in patients with diabetes and excess weight who are not candidates for bariatric surgery, new research shows.

During minimally invasive ESG, a flexible endoscope equipped with an endoscopic suturing device is inserted down the esophagus and into the stomach. The endoscopist then applies the sutures to the upper portion of the stomach, minimizing its size to restrict the amount of food a patient can ingest.

“Our stomachs can stretch back a bit, but we can use the suturing device again,” explained the lead investigator of the research Anna Carolina Hoff, MD, founder and clinical director of Angioskope Brazil in São José dos Campos.

“It’s important that patients with diabetes lose as much weight as possible because, if they lose about 10% of their total body weight, they have a great improvement in their glycemic levels, and some patients can even stop taking their [antidiabetic] medications,” Dr. Hoff said in an interview.

“And we found that by adding the GLP-1 agonist [semaglutide], we could increase weight loss from, on average, about 16%-18% of total body weight with ESG alone to up to 27%, so it’s a great metabolic combination,” she noted.

Dr. Hoff presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, director, National Center for Weight and Wellness, George Washington University, Washington, cautioned that it’s still early days for minimally invasive ESG.

“It is reasonable to assume that the long-term outcomes [with ESG] won’t be as good or durable over time as with bariatric surgery, but ... we will have to see.”

However, “we know that, typically, combinations of therapeutic options work better than a one-off option, so I think the real benefit of this study – outside the specific procedure and this specific medication – is that it is a very valuable proof-of-principle study showing that combinations do work better,” Dr. Kahan said in an interview.
 

Minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

ESG is a surrogate for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy that can offer the benefits of such a procedure to those who don’t qualify for, or don’t wish to pursue, bariatric surgery. It can be performed at an earlier stage of disease, in those with a body mass index of 30 mg/kg², whereas generally people are not offered bariatric procedures unless they have a BMI of at least 35 with comorbidities or a BMI of at least 40 if they do not have comorbidities.

Subcutaneous semaglutide is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week; higher doses are needed for weight loss. Novo Nordisk has been investigating higher doses for weight loss in the STEP trial program, which is now complete, and the company has submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for an additional indication of adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) or who are overweight (BMI ≥27) and who have at least one weight-related comorbidity, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, with a decision expected soon.

Novo Nordisk has also developed an oral form of semaglutide, which has been approved as a once-daily agent for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
 

Patients lost fat mass as well as excess weight

The Brazilian study involved 58 patients with obesity or overweight who also had diabetes and were undergoing minimally invasive ESG; they were further randomized to receive semaglutide or placebo.

The GLP-1 agonist (or sham placebo) was initiated 1 month after participants had undergone the procedure and patients were monitored each month for weight loss and type of fat loss achieved with the combination versus ESG alone. The initial dose of semaglutide used was 0.25 mg subcutaneous a week but could be titrated up to a maximum dose of 1.5 mg.

At the end of 11 months of active treatment versus placebo (12 months after ESG), patients who received additional semaglutide lost 86.3% of their excess body weight – the amount of weight patients needed to lose to reach normal BMI – compared with only 60.4% for ESG controls.

Specifically, the mean percentage total body weight loss at the end of 12 months was 25.2% for those in the combination group, compared with 18.6% for those treated with ESG alone (P < .001).

More importantly, patients in the combination group lost 12.6% of their body fat mass, compared with 9% for ESG controls, while mean A1c levels fell more in those treated with additional semaglutide compared with controls (P = .0394).

Indeed, five patients in the combination group reverted to a nondiabetic state and were able to discontinue antidiabetic medications altogether, Dr. Hoff noted.

“Our main goal is not just to lose weight but to lose body mass fat, which is very different from just losing weight,” she explained.

If patients lose weight but still maintain a high percentage of body fat mass, they have what she refers to as “sarcopenic obesity” because in this state patients have lost a lot of muscle mass but still have high levels of metabolically active visceral fat. Among many other inflammatory complexes, metabolically active visceral fat contains a large number of inflammasomes, and it is the latter that have been associated with obesity-related cancers. 

“Obesity is a progressive disease, so what we are trying to do here is buy time for patients so they do not progress to [bariatric] surgery, and this approach gives patients a chance to act earlier before obesity takes over and more metabolic consequences occur,” Dr. Hoff emphasized.

So, when combined with semaglutide, “we now have a minimally invasive procedure that can be just as successful [as surgery] and which can be made available to even more people looking to lose a significant amount of weight,” she concluded.

Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty with a weekly injection of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) leads to significantly greater weight loss than ESG alone in patients with diabetes and excess weight who are not candidates for bariatric surgery, new research shows.

During minimally invasive ESG, a flexible endoscope equipped with an endoscopic suturing device is inserted down the esophagus and into the stomach. The endoscopist then applies the sutures to the upper portion of the stomach, minimizing its size to restrict the amount of food a patient can ingest.

“Our stomachs can stretch back a bit, but we can use the suturing device again,” explained the lead investigator of the research Anna Carolina Hoff, MD, founder and clinical director of Angioskope Brazil in São José dos Campos.

“It’s important that patients with diabetes lose as much weight as possible because, if they lose about 10% of their total body weight, they have a great improvement in their glycemic levels, and some patients can even stop taking their [antidiabetic] medications,” Dr. Hoff said in an interview.

“And we found that by adding the GLP-1 agonist [semaglutide], we could increase weight loss from, on average, about 16%-18% of total body weight with ESG alone to up to 27%, so it’s a great metabolic combination,” she noted.

Dr. Hoff presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, director, National Center for Weight and Wellness, George Washington University, Washington, cautioned that it’s still early days for minimally invasive ESG.

“It is reasonable to assume that the long-term outcomes [with ESG] won’t be as good or durable over time as with bariatric surgery, but ... we will have to see.”

However, “we know that, typically, combinations of therapeutic options work better than a one-off option, so I think the real benefit of this study – outside the specific procedure and this specific medication – is that it is a very valuable proof-of-principle study showing that combinations do work better,” Dr. Kahan said in an interview.
 

Minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

ESG is a surrogate for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy that can offer the benefits of such a procedure to those who don’t qualify for, or don’t wish to pursue, bariatric surgery. It can be performed at an earlier stage of disease, in those with a body mass index of 30 mg/kg², whereas generally people are not offered bariatric procedures unless they have a BMI of at least 35 with comorbidities or a BMI of at least 40 if they do not have comorbidities.

Subcutaneous semaglutide is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week; higher doses are needed for weight loss. Novo Nordisk has been investigating higher doses for weight loss in the STEP trial program, which is now complete, and the company has submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for an additional indication of adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) or who are overweight (BMI ≥27) and who have at least one weight-related comorbidity, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, with a decision expected soon.

Novo Nordisk has also developed an oral form of semaglutide, which has been approved as a once-daily agent for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
 

Patients lost fat mass as well as excess weight

The Brazilian study involved 58 patients with obesity or overweight who also had diabetes and were undergoing minimally invasive ESG; they were further randomized to receive semaglutide or placebo.

The GLP-1 agonist (or sham placebo) was initiated 1 month after participants had undergone the procedure and patients were monitored each month for weight loss and type of fat loss achieved with the combination versus ESG alone. The initial dose of semaglutide used was 0.25 mg subcutaneous a week but could be titrated up to a maximum dose of 1.5 mg.

At the end of 11 months of active treatment versus placebo (12 months after ESG), patients who received additional semaglutide lost 86.3% of their excess body weight – the amount of weight patients needed to lose to reach normal BMI – compared with only 60.4% for ESG controls.

Specifically, the mean percentage total body weight loss at the end of 12 months was 25.2% for those in the combination group, compared with 18.6% for those treated with ESG alone (P < .001).

More importantly, patients in the combination group lost 12.6% of their body fat mass, compared with 9% for ESG controls, while mean A1c levels fell more in those treated with additional semaglutide compared with controls (P = .0394).

Indeed, five patients in the combination group reverted to a nondiabetic state and were able to discontinue antidiabetic medications altogether, Dr. Hoff noted.

“Our main goal is not just to lose weight but to lose body mass fat, which is very different from just losing weight,” she explained.

If patients lose weight but still maintain a high percentage of body fat mass, they have what she refers to as “sarcopenic obesity” because in this state patients have lost a lot of muscle mass but still have high levels of metabolically active visceral fat. Among many other inflammatory complexes, metabolically active visceral fat contains a large number of inflammasomes, and it is the latter that have been associated with obesity-related cancers. 

“Obesity is a progressive disease, so what we are trying to do here is buy time for patients so they do not progress to [bariatric] surgery, and this approach gives patients a chance to act earlier before obesity takes over and more metabolic consequences occur,” Dr. Hoff emphasized.

So, when combined with semaglutide, “we now have a minimally invasive procedure that can be just as successful [as surgery] and which can be made available to even more people looking to lose a significant amount of weight,” she concluded.

Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty with a weekly injection of the glucagonlike peptide–1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) leads to significantly greater weight loss than ESG alone in patients with diabetes and excess weight who are not candidates for bariatric surgery, new research shows.

During minimally invasive ESG, a flexible endoscope equipped with an endoscopic suturing device is inserted down the esophagus and into the stomach. The endoscopist then applies the sutures to the upper portion of the stomach, minimizing its size to restrict the amount of food a patient can ingest.

“Our stomachs can stretch back a bit, but we can use the suturing device again,” explained the lead investigator of the research Anna Carolina Hoff, MD, founder and clinical director of Angioskope Brazil in São José dos Campos.

“It’s important that patients with diabetes lose as much weight as possible because, if they lose about 10% of their total body weight, they have a great improvement in their glycemic levels, and some patients can even stop taking their [antidiabetic] medications,” Dr. Hoff said in an interview.

“And we found that by adding the GLP-1 agonist [semaglutide], we could increase weight loss from, on average, about 16%-18% of total body weight with ESG alone to up to 27%, so it’s a great metabolic combination,” she noted.

Dr. Hoff presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).

Asked to comment, Scott Kahan, MD, MPH, director, National Center for Weight and Wellness, George Washington University, Washington, cautioned that it’s still early days for minimally invasive ESG.

“It is reasonable to assume that the long-term outcomes [with ESG] won’t be as good or durable over time as with bariatric surgery, but ... we will have to see.”

However, “we know that, typically, combinations of therapeutic options work better than a one-off option, so I think the real benefit of this study – outside the specific procedure and this specific medication – is that it is a very valuable proof-of-principle study showing that combinations do work better,” Dr. Kahan said in an interview.
 

Minimally invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty

ESG is a surrogate for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy that can offer the benefits of such a procedure to those who don’t qualify for, or don’t wish to pursue, bariatric surgery. It can be performed at an earlier stage of disease, in those with a body mass index of 30 mg/kg², whereas generally people are not offered bariatric procedures unless they have a BMI of at least 35 with comorbidities or a BMI of at least 40 if they do not have comorbidities.

Subcutaneous semaglutide is already approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults at doses of up to 1 mg/week; higher doses are needed for weight loss. Novo Nordisk has been investigating higher doses for weight loss in the STEP trial program, which is now complete, and the company has submitted the data to the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for an additional indication of adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) or who are overweight (BMI ≥27) and who have at least one weight-related comorbidity, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, with a decision expected soon.

Novo Nordisk has also developed an oral form of semaglutide, which has been approved as a once-daily agent for type 2 diabetes (Rybelsus) in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.
 

Patients lost fat mass as well as excess weight

The Brazilian study involved 58 patients with obesity or overweight who also had diabetes and were undergoing minimally invasive ESG; they were further randomized to receive semaglutide or placebo.

The GLP-1 agonist (or sham placebo) was initiated 1 month after participants had undergone the procedure and patients were monitored each month for weight loss and type of fat loss achieved with the combination versus ESG alone. The initial dose of semaglutide used was 0.25 mg subcutaneous a week but could be titrated up to a maximum dose of 1.5 mg.

At the end of 11 months of active treatment versus placebo (12 months after ESG), patients who received additional semaglutide lost 86.3% of their excess body weight – the amount of weight patients needed to lose to reach normal BMI – compared with only 60.4% for ESG controls.

Specifically, the mean percentage total body weight loss at the end of 12 months was 25.2% for those in the combination group, compared with 18.6% for those treated with ESG alone (P < .001).

More importantly, patients in the combination group lost 12.6% of their body fat mass, compared with 9% for ESG controls, while mean A1c levels fell more in those treated with additional semaglutide compared with controls (P = .0394).

Indeed, five patients in the combination group reverted to a nondiabetic state and were able to discontinue antidiabetic medications altogether, Dr. Hoff noted.

“Our main goal is not just to lose weight but to lose body mass fat, which is very different from just losing weight,” she explained.

If patients lose weight but still maintain a high percentage of body fat mass, they have what she refers to as “sarcopenic obesity” because in this state patients have lost a lot of muscle mass but still have high levels of metabolically active visceral fat. Among many other inflammatory complexes, metabolically active visceral fat contains a large number of inflammasomes, and it is the latter that have been associated with obesity-related cancers. 

“Obesity is a progressive disease, so what we are trying to do here is buy time for patients so they do not progress to [bariatric] surgery, and this approach gives patients a chance to act earlier before obesity takes over and more metabolic consequences occur,” Dr. Hoff emphasized.

So, when combined with semaglutide, “we now have a minimally invasive procedure that can be just as successful [as surgery] and which can be made available to even more people looking to lose a significant amount of weight,” she concluded.

Dr. Hoff and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

Greater severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with a higher risk of contracting COVID-19, and positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment may counter that risk, according to a retrospective analysis from the records of Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

OSA patients often worry that PAP therapy might increase risk of severe COVID-19, said Dennis Hwang, MD, who presented the study at the American Thoracic Society’s virtual international conference (Abstract A1108). But the findings should be reassuring. “If you have obstructive sleep apnea, and you’re supposed to be using PAP, we recommend that you continue using PAP. It’s good for your overall wellness and reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but as it relates to COVID-19, it’s possible that it could protect. And there doesn’t appear to be any risk of increased severity of illness (with use of PAP),” Dr. Hwang said in an interview. He is medical director of sleep medicine for Kaiser Permanente San Bernardino County and cochair of sleep medicine for Kaiser Southern California.

He noted that the retrospective nature of the study makes it difficult to pin down whether PAP therapy is truly protective, “but I think there’s enough that we’ve been able conceptually to understand, to suggest that a direct causative relationship is possible,” said Dr. Hwang.

The results may imply that OSA patients should pay special attention to their OSA when there’s concern about exposure to an infectious agent like SARS-CoV-2. “The intermittent hypoxia at night, which can linger over to the day as increased sympathetic activity, increased heart rate. All of these are stresses to the body. So if you’re going to get infected, you want to start at a healthier level. You want to eliminate your sleep apnea to help reduce your risk of morbidity,” said Esra Tasali, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Tasali is associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, and director of the Sleep Research Center there.

During the Q&A session after the talk, audience members asked about the timing of PAP use during COVID-19 infection, for example how often it was used during the asymptomatic phase of infection and if PAP has a positive effect. The data were not available, but “I think that the way to go is to understand this chronology,” said Dr. Tasali.

The researchers examined records between 2015 and 2020, using sleep study data, remotely collected daily PAP data, and electronic health records, all from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Included subjects were adults who had enrolled before Feb. 1, 2020, and had sleep diagnostic or PAP data on record by March 1, 2020. The researchers analyzed PAP adherence between March 1, 2020, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, or until the study ended on July 31, 2020.

Patients were defined as being untreated (< 2 hours/night PAP), moderately treated (2-3.9 hours/night), or well treated (4 or more hours/night). Apnea hypopnea index (AHI) was used to determine severity. The analysis included 81,932 patients (39.8% were women, mean age was 54.0 years, 9.9% were Black, and 34.5% were Hispanic). A total of 1.7% of subjects without OSA experienced COVID-19 infection, compared to 1.8% with OSA; 0.3% with OSA were hospitalized and 0.07% underwent intensive care or died.

There were some differences between the two groups. The non-USA population was younger (mean age 47.0 vs. 54.5 years), was less likely to be men (44% vs. 60.3%), had a lower mean body mass index (30.4 vs. 34.3), had fewer comorbidities according to the Charleston Comorbidity Index (1.3 vs. 2.0), and were less likely to have hypertension (5.6% vs. 12.4%; P < .0001 for all).

Infection rates were higher in patients with more severe OSA. The rates in untreated mild, moderate, and severe OSA were 2%, 2%, and 2.4% respectively. The rate among all treated patients was 1.4% (P < .0001). Infection rates also dropped among patients with better treatment: untreated, 2.1%; moderately treated, 1.7%; and well treated, 1.3% (P < .0001).

Not having OSA was associated with a lower infection risk than was having OSA (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.96). Compared to untreated patients, there was lower infection risk in the moderately treated (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.03) and well treated (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79) groups. Higher infection rates were associated with obesity, higher Charlson Comorbidity score (> 2; OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53), Black (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.24-1.84) and Hispanic ethnicities (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.96-2.54), and Medicaid enrollment. Increasing age was associated with lower risk of infection, with each 5-year increment linked to reduced risk (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90). Dr. Hwang suggested that the age association may be because older individuals were more likely to follow social distancing and other precautions.

A multivariate analysis found that OSA was associated with infection risk according to OSA severity, including mild (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.44), and moderate to severe (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51). There was no association between hospitalization rate or ICU admission/death and presence of OSA or PAP adherence in the data presented, but Dr. Hwang said that an updated analysis suggests that OSA may be associated with a risk of greater COVID-19 severity.

The control group was composed of individuals who had undergone sleep testing, but found to not have OSA. Still, they aren’t necessarily representative of the general population, since symptoms likely drove them to testing. A high percentage were also obese, and the average BMI was 30. “It’s certainly not a ‘normal population,’ but the advantage of what we did in terms of using this control group is that they underwent sleep testing, so they were proven to have no obstructive sleep apnea, whereas if we used a general population, we just don’t know,” said Dr. Hwang.

The study received technical and data support from Somnoware, and was funded by Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Tasali has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

A group of bipartisan lawmakers intends to compel insurers to streamline prior authorization processes for Medicare Advantage plans, including a bid to end the use of faxes and develop systems that can allow for real-time decisions.

Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.); Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.); Rep. Ami Bera, MD (D-Calif.); and Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD, (R-Ind.) on May 13 introduced a bill that would task federal officials with refining standards regarding prior authorization for Medicare Advantage. Titled the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2021, the bill would direct the Department of Health & Human Services to create rules intended to make prior authorization more transparent and speedy for the insurer-run Medicare plans. Known as Medicare Advantage, these plans cover about 24.1 million people of the 62 million enrolled in the giant federal health program, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation.

These revamped prior authorization systems could not rely on faxes nor could they employ proprietary payer portals that did not meet HHS’ standards, says the text of the bill released by Rep. DelBene. Insurers would also have to report to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the extent of their use of prior authorization and the rate of approvals or denials. The bill seeks to encourage plans to adopt prior authorization programs that adhere to evidence-based medical guidelines in consultation with physicians.

There were several reasons for focusing on Medicare Advantage plans, although prior authorization concerns extend more broadly in the U.S. health care system, said Susan Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association.

There’s an ample body of research about issues seen in the Medicare Advantage plans. Dr. Bailey also said that, in her experience, Medicare Advantage plans have had some of the most restrictive policies. And, by starting with Medicare Advantage, there’s a potential for a ripple effect in the industry, easing this issue when physicians work with other insurers as well.

“When Medicare adopts a policy whether it be a payment policy or a coverage policy, private insurers typically follow along,” she said.
 

Strong support among health care groups

There’s strong support for streamlining prior authorization both in the medical community and in Congress.

The bill has the support of about 70 health care organizations, including the AMA and the American Academy of Family Physicians, according to its sponsors. As of May 17, the bill had attracted the backing of 97 members of the House of Representatives, roughly evenly split among Democrats and Republicans.

Rep. DelBene’s previous version of this bill, the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2019, attracted 143 Democratic cosponsors and 137 Republican ones, or more than half of the members of the House. This bill was not completed during the previous session of Congress (January 2019–January 2021) because of the more urgent needs of pandemic response, said Rep. Bucshon, who practiced cardiothoracic surgery before joining Congress.

“It wasn’t quite on the radar as much as it might have been if we didn’t have COVID,” Rep. Bucshon said.

Rep. Bucshon added that he expects strong Senate support for a companion measure of the House bill, which could make the difference for efforts to pass it this year.

Insurers have become more aggressive over time in denying payments through prior authorization systems for services that physicians say their patients need, according to Rep. Bucshon. There may be some “bad actors” in medicine who would order unnecessary procedures, Rep. Bucshon allowed, but in most cases, the cumbersome prior authorization processes only put a hurdle for patients seeking needed treatments, he said.

“The premise is that it controls health care costs but actually what it does is it helps insurance company’s bottom line,” Rep. Bucshon said.

In a prepared statement, former Pennsylvania representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, now CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance, said her group had spoken with sponsors of this legislation and appreciates “their receptiveness to feedback in this process.”

“Prior authorization ensures beneficiaries receive clinically appropriate care and reduces exposures to duplicative and unnecessary services,” Ms. Schwartz said. “We share an interest in ensuring prior authorization works as smoothly and effectively as possible for beneficiaries while protecting its essential function of facilitating safe, evidenced-based care.”

The Better Medicare Alliance said its funders include UnitedHealth, Humana, and CVS Health/Aetna, which run Advantage plans. The group also lists as its partners many medical organizations.
 

“Rationing care by hassling”

Like Rep. Bucshon, Dr. Bailey sees a different motivation in insurers’ persistence in keeping the prior authorization process cumbersome.

Phone calls and faxes remain the key methods for handling prior authorization for medical services, according to the results of a survey done by the AMA in December. Phone calls were always or often required for prior authorization for medical services (59%), with faxes the second-most common approach (46%), followed by health plans’ online portals (39%), electronic health records and practice management systems (29%), and email or U.S. mail (26%), according to the AMA’s report on the survey.

“It seems like every step in the process is designed to make the patient less likely to get the therapy that the doctor thinks that the patient needs,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s almost like rationing care by hassling the patient and the physician.”

The findings of an investigation by HHS’ internal watchdog unit appear to support Dr. Bailey’s view, showing that insurer-run Medicare plans had a pattern of often walking back their initial rejections.

In 2018, the Office of the Inspector General for HHS reported that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) overturned 75% of their own denials during 2014-16. In addition, independent reviewers within the appeals process overturned additional denials in favor of patients and clinicians, OIG said.

“The high number of overturned denials raises concerns that some Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided,” the OIG said in the report. “This is especially concerning because beneficiaries and providers rarely used the appeals process, which is designed to ensure access to care and payment.”

During 2014-2016, patients and clinicians appealed only 1% of denials to the first level of appeal, OIG said. In the report, the watchdog group noted that CMS audits had highlighted “widespread and persistent MAO performance problems related to denials of care and payment.” In 2015, for example, CMS cited 56% of audited contracts for making inappropriate denials.

Dr. Bailey also said in an interview that she routinely encounters problems with prior authorization in her own practice as an allergist and immunologist in Fort Worth, Tex.

In late May, for example, a Medicare Advantage plan made a patient whose chronic asthma had been stable for years change to a new inhaler that resulted in him developing a yeast infection in his mouth, Dr. Bailey said.

“We treated the yeast infection, made some changes in the way he uses his inhaler, so hopefully he would tolerate it better,” Dr. Bailey said. “He had a reaction to the medication to treat the yeast infection and ended up in the hospital. How is that helping anyone? It certainly hasn’t helped my patient.”

Dr. Bailey said insurers have also asked to seek prior authorization to prescribe medications that have been generic for years and have used the process to challenge her on cases of what seem to be common sense in medical practice. This included a bid to have Dr. Bailey prescribe a medication in pill form for a 6-month-old baby who had no teeth.

“Every doctor has got absurd stories like that, but unfortunately, every doctor is going to have tragic stories where prior authorization has resulted in death and harm to the patients,” Dr. Bailey said.

Some physicians leave it to the patient to try to overcome insurers’ decisions on prior authorization, seeing this task as falling outside of their duties, Dr. Bailey said.

“I don’t do that. I fight. I spend a lot of time fighting. I don’t like to lose. I don’t like my patients to lose, so I will go to the mat for them,” Dr. Bailey said. “But I’m blessed to be in a specialty where I’ve got loads more control over my schedule than many other specialties do.”

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

New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.

“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.

“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.

The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Renewed focus on diet

“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.

“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.

The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).

The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.

Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.

Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.

In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).

Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.

“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.

“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.

“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.

It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.

“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.

In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”

“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.

The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.

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

New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.

“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.

“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.

The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Renewed focus on diet

“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.

“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.

The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).

The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.

Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.

Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.

In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).

Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.

“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.

“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.

“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.

It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.

“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.

In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”

“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.

The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.

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

New data show for the first time that combining the DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet with sodium restriction decreases myocardial injury and cardiac strain, which are associated with subclinical cardiac damage and long-term cardiovascular risk.

“The benefits of healthy eating are swift and direct. High sodium is not just about taste, it causes heart strain,” Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview.

“We should consciously follow a diet enriched with fruit and vegetables and low in sodium. Collectively, we should think about how foods are promoted in society and what is an acceptable amount of sodium for food supplies,” said Dr. Juraschek.

The findings, from a secondary analysis of the DASH-Sodium trial, were published the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Renewed focus on diet

“These data should spur a renewed focus on the critical need for widespread adoption of the DASH–low-sodium diet in the United States,” wrote the coauthors of a linked editorial.

“The challenge remains moving the DASH–low-sodium diet from the research world into the real world, where its significant health benefits can be fully realized,” they added.

The researchers evaluated the impact of the DASH diet and sodium restriction, individually and combined, on biomarkers of cardiac injury (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I [hs-cTnI]), cardiac strain (N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]), and inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]).

The DASH-Sodium trial was a controlled feeding study that enrolled 412 adults (mean age, 48 years; 56% women, 56% Black) with untreated systolic blood pressure between 120 and 159 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 95 mm Hg. Mean baseline BP was 135/86 mm Hg.

Participants were randomly allocated to a typical American diet (control) or the heart-healthy DASH diet. Further, participants in both groups were assigned to each of three sodium intake levels: low (0.5 mg/kcal), medium (1.1 mg/kcal) or high (1.6 mg/kcal) for 30 days using a crossover design with washout periods in between.

Compared with the control diet, the DASH diet reduced hs-cTnI by 18% and hs-CRP by 13% with no impact on NT-proBNP.

In contrast, lowering sodium from high to low levels reduced NT-proBNP independent of diet by 19%, but did not alter hs-cTnI and mildly increased hs-CRP (9%).

Combining the DASH diet with sodium reduction lowered hs-cTnI by 20% and NT-proBNP by 23%, with no significant change in hs-CRP, compared with the high-sodium-control diet.

“Together, these findings imply that two distinct dietary strategies might improve two key pathways of subclinical cardiac damage: injury and strain,” Dr. Juraschek and colleagues wrote.

“These findings should strengthen public resolve for public policies that promote the DASH dietary pattern and lower sodium intake in the United States and globally,” they concluded.

“We need to talk about DASH more. Most adults in the U.S. have never heard of it,” Dr. Juraschek said in an interview.

“We need to promote nutrition literacy with regard to nutrition facts. Labeling is not very transparent and hard to understand. Many people don’t know where salt is hiding in their diet,” he added.

It will also be important to address disparities in access to healthy foods and food insecurity, Dr. Juraschek said.

“If we don’t address food costs and access, disparities in healthy eating will persist. Greater equity is key. We should also be mindful about populations dependent on others for meal preparation [children in schools or older adults on meal plans]. This might be regulated in ways that promote healthier eating population wide, but for these patients, they may not have autonomy to choose what they eat,” Dr. Juraschek said.

In their editorial, Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, and Laura P. Svetkey, MD, from Duke University and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said an important caveat is that the beneficial effects of diet and sodium restriction on cardiac injury and strain occurred in people without any clinical evidence of coronary artery disease or heart failure at baseline, “suggesting that this dietary combination can improve subclinical metrics of cardiac health.”

“Further, the impact on these markers was seen within weeks, indicating a relatively rapid impact on cardiac damage,” they added.

The measurement of cardiac biomarkers was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The original DASH trial was supported by the NHLBI, the Office of Research on Minority Health, and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Juraschek and coauthors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pagidipati has received research support to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Verily Life Sciences; and has received consultation fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Svetkey has no relevant disclosures.

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

When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.

“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.

“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.

“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.

The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
 

Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention

For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.

Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.

“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.

For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.

Among the recommendations:

• Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
• Screen for  and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
• Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking  along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
• Consider  or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
• Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
• In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .

The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.

“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.

“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.

“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.

“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.

The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
 

Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention

For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.

Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.

“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.

For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.

Among the recommendations:

• Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
• Screen for  and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
• Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking  along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
• Consider  or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
• Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
• In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .

The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.

“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

When possible, diagnostic tests to determine the cause of a first stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be completed within 48 hours after symptom onset, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association said in an updated clinical practice guideline.

“It is critically important to understand the best ways to prevent another stroke once someone has had a stroke or a TIA,” Dawn O. Kleindorfer, MD, chair of the guideline writing group, said in a news release.

“If we can pinpoint the cause of the first stroke or TIA, we can tailor strategies to prevent a second stroke,” said Dr. Kleindorfer, professor and chair, department of neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The updated guideline was published online May 24, 2021, in Stroke.

“The secondary prevention of stroke guideline is one of the ASA’s ‘flagship’ guidelines, last updated in 2014,” Dr. Kleindorfer said.

The update includes “a number of changes to the writing and formatting of this guideline to make it easier for professionals to understand and locate information more quickly, ultimately greatly improving patient care and preventing more strokes in our patients,” she noted.
 

Let pathogenic subtype guide prevention

For patients who have survived a stroke or TIA, management of vascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol/triglyceride levels, and smoking cessation, are key secondary prevention tactics, the guideline said.

Limiting salt intake and/or following a heart-healthy Mediterranean diet is also advised, as is engaging in at least moderate-intensity aerobic activity for at least 10 minutes four times a week or vigorous-intensity aerobic activity for at least 20 minutes twice a week.

“Approximately 80% of strokes can be prevented by controlling blood pressure, eating a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, not smoking and maintaining a healthy weight,” Amytis Towfighi, MD, vice chair of the guideline writing group and director of neurologic services, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, noted in the release.

For health care professionals, the guideline said specific recommendations for secondary prevention often depend on the ischemic stroke/TIA subtype. “Therefore, new in this guideline is a section describing recommendations for the diagnostic workup after ischemic stroke, to define ischemic stroke pathogenesis (when possible), and to identify targets for treatment to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke. Recommendations are now segregated by pathogenetic subtype,” the guideline stated.

Among the recommendations:

• Use multidisciplinary care teams to personalize care for patients and employ shared decision-making with the patient to develop care plans that incorporate a patient’s wishes, goals, and concerns.
• Screen for  and initiate anticoagulant drug therapy to reduce recurrent events.
• Prescribe antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelets or anticoagulants, in the absence of contraindications. The guideline noted that the combination of antiplatelets and anticoagulation is typically not recommended for preventing second strokes and that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) – taking  along with a second medication to prevent blood clotting – is recommended in the short term and only for specific patients: those with early arriving minor stroke and high-risk TIA or severe symptomatic stenosis.
• Consider  or carotid artery stenting for select patients with narrowing of carotid arteries.
• Aggressive medical management of risk factors and short-term DAPT are preferred for patients with severe intracranial stenosis thought to be the cause of first stroke or TIA.
• In some patients, it’s reasonable to consider percutaneous closure of .

The guideline is accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet versus single antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention. The authors conclude that DAPT may be appropriate for select patients.

“Additional research is needed to determine: the optimal timing of starting treatment relative to the clinical event; the optimal duration of DAPT to maximize the risk-benefit ratio; whether additional populations excluded from POINT and CHANCE [two of the trials examined], such as those with major stroke, may also benefit from early DAPT; and whether certain genetic profiles eliminate the benefit of early DAPT,” concluded the reviewers, led by Devin Brown, MD, University of Michigan.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA Stroke Council’s Scientific Statements Oversight Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. The writing group included representatives from the AHA/ASA and the American Academy of Neurology. The guideline has been endorsed by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology. It has also been affirmed by the AAN as an educational tool for neurologists.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

Overuse of basal insulin rather than adding therapies that target mealtime glucose levels is a common problem in primary care management of type 2 diabetes that impedes achievement of optimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Such ‘overbasalization,’ defined as a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 8% despite use of more than 0.5 units/kg per day of basal insulin, was identified in about 40% of patients seen in a Florida primary care clinic during 2015-2018. The findings were published in the April 2021 issue of Clinical Diabetes by Kevin Cowart, PharmD, a diabetes care and education specialist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and colleagues.

The literature suggests that once people with type 2 diabetes start basal insulin, the chance that they’ll achieve a given hemoglobin A1c target, i.e., less than 7%, diminishes significantly if that goal isn’t achieved within the first year of starting insulin, Dr. Cowart said in an interview.

“Our analysis suggests that overbasalization plays a role in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin not achieving optimal glycemic control. Basal insulin is not designed to address postprandial hyperglycemia. I think there’s a clear need to address hesitancy in therapeutic progression beyond basal insulin. A lot of factors underlie the delays, with therapeutic inertia being one of them. It’s complex,” he said.
 

Overbasalization seen in large proportion of patients

The study comprised 655 adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for at least a year who received a prescription for a basal insulin (glargine U-100, glargine U-300, detemir, degludec U-100, degludec U-200, regular U-500, or NPH insulin).

The patients had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4% and a mean basal insulin dose 0.4 units/kg per day. The prevalence of overbasalization was 38.1% for those with hemoglobin A1c above 8%, 42.7% for those with A1c of 9% or above, and 42% with A1c of 10% or greater.

Patient characteristics independently associated with overbasalization were age 35-54 years (odds ratio 1.89), age 65-80 years (0.44), A1c 9% or greater (13.97), and A1c 10% or greater (6.04). Having a prescription for insulin glargine U-100 was associated with a lower overbasalization risk (0.62). In multivariate analysis, only an A1c of 9% or greater remained significant.

Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that she sees [overbasalization] frequently in patients who are referred to her. “It’s kind of that wall that patients with type 2 diabetes hit because their A1c is high but their fasting blood sugars are normal. Sometimes it’s assumed that there’s a discrepancy, because people don’t always think about postprandial hyperglycemia.”

She also noted that there has been a push in recent years to simplify regimens, particularly in older patients.

“We really want to avoid rapid-acting insulin in older patients because we’re afraid of hypoglycemia, so we start them on basal and keep the noninsulins like metformin and sulfonylureas around. Initially those control the postprandial blood sugar but over time they’re no longer enough.”
 

Options exist for addressing postmeal blood sugar highs while minimizing lows

While in the past adding premeal insulin was the only option, today there are alternatives for addressing postmeal hyperglycemia, at least in the short term.

Dr. Cowart advised that the first step is to have patients self-monitor their blood glucose and titrate their basal insulin to address fasting hyperglycemia first. Once that appropriate dose is reached, if the patient’s hemoglobin A1c is still above target, the next step is to evaluate the need for postmeal control.

For patients who are at high cardiovascular risk, the next step might involve adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) instead of premeal insulin. But for patients in whom overbasalization is the main concern, a GLP-1RA might be the better choice since it will have a greater impact on postprandial glucose levels, while an SGLT2i will have more effect on fasting blood sugar, he said.

Another option is to use a fixed-dose combination of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), provided there aren’t cost or formulary barriers. “We want to use the right combination of drugs and not use too much of one to lead to hypoglycemia,” Dr. Cowart said.

Dr. McCoy doesn’t use fixed-dose combinations because they don’t allow as much flexibility in dosing. To correct overbasalization, she also recommends adding either a GLP-1RA or SGLT2i instead of premeal insulin. However, she cautions, “you still have to monitor those patients because after a few years it still won’t be enough and you’ll have to add mealtime insulin.”

If cost or lack of coverage prevents a patient’s use of SLGT2i/GLP-1RAs, Dr. McCoy said that adding just one premeal injection of rapid-acting insulin before the largest meal of the day is one option. Another is to use twice-daily NPH insulin instead of analog basal insulin, since that does offer some postprandial coverage.

Dr. Cowart said his approach in cost barrier situations is to try to use patient assistance programs and to look into the patient’s formulary to see if there is step therapy or tier considerations, and maybe have a discussion with the insurance company. “We often have to navigate that, and it does take a significant amount of time and could potentially delay patients getting the right therapy when it’s warranted. That is an area where there is a particular role for pharmacists in helping to overcome that and get patients on the right drugs,” he explained.
 

Problem may be even more common; testing is key

Dr. McCoy said that the A1c cutoff of 8% used to define overbasalization in the study probably resulted in an underestimation of the problem, since many patients are experiencing nighttime hypoglycemia from the basal insulin. The lows bring down their A1c level, but they’re still experiencing postmeal highs.

“I think they’re missing a lot of people, to be honest. I see a lot of patients with A1cs that aren’t that bad, say 7.5%, and their fasting blood sugars are okay, but if you were to put a [continuous glucose monitor] on those patients, invariably there’s hypoglycemia at night that no one knew about.”

Of course, for insurance reasons, most people with type 2 diabetes don’t currently have access to continuous glucose monitors. And often those who are not taking multiple daily injections are limited to one fingerstick test strip a day.

Dr. McCoy says that if hypoglycemia is a concern she will write a prior authorization justifying more test strips.

“I state explicitly in my notes why I recommend frequent monitoring. If they’re on a sulfonylurea, they should be able to check more frequently because they can have hypoglycemia. Same thing with basal insulin.”

Dr. McCoy advises that patients test their blood sugar 2 hours after the largest meal on one day, and at other times on different days. “Blood glucose after a meal shouldn’t be more than 200 [mg/dL]. If it is, that’s not a failure of basal insulin. It’s doing its job. You just need a different agent.”

Dr. Cowart has no disclosures. Dr. McCoy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Overuse of basal insulin rather than adding therapies that target mealtime glucose levels is a common problem in primary care management of type 2 diabetes that impedes achievement of optimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Such ‘overbasalization,’ defined as a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 8% despite use of more than 0.5 units/kg per day of basal insulin, was identified in about 40% of patients seen in a Florida primary care clinic during 2015-2018. The findings were published in the April 2021 issue of Clinical Diabetes by Kevin Cowart, PharmD, a diabetes care and education specialist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and colleagues.

The literature suggests that once people with type 2 diabetes start basal insulin, the chance that they’ll achieve a given hemoglobin A1c target, i.e., less than 7%, diminishes significantly if that goal isn’t achieved within the first year of starting insulin, Dr. Cowart said in an interview.

“Our analysis suggests that overbasalization plays a role in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin not achieving optimal glycemic control. Basal insulin is not designed to address postprandial hyperglycemia. I think there’s a clear need to address hesitancy in therapeutic progression beyond basal insulin. A lot of factors underlie the delays, with therapeutic inertia being one of them. It’s complex,” he said.
 

Overbasalization seen in large proportion of patients

The study comprised 655 adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for at least a year who received a prescription for a basal insulin (glargine U-100, glargine U-300, detemir, degludec U-100, degludec U-200, regular U-500, or NPH insulin).

The patients had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4% and a mean basal insulin dose 0.4 units/kg per day. The prevalence of overbasalization was 38.1% for those with hemoglobin A1c above 8%, 42.7% for those with A1c of 9% or above, and 42% with A1c of 10% or greater.

Patient characteristics independently associated with overbasalization were age 35-54 years (odds ratio 1.89), age 65-80 years (0.44), A1c 9% or greater (13.97), and A1c 10% or greater (6.04). Having a prescription for insulin glargine U-100 was associated with a lower overbasalization risk (0.62). In multivariate analysis, only an A1c of 9% or greater remained significant.

Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that she sees [overbasalization] frequently in patients who are referred to her. “It’s kind of that wall that patients with type 2 diabetes hit because their A1c is high but their fasting blood sugars are normal. Sometimes it’s assumed that there’s a discrepancy, because people don’t always think about postprandial hyperglycemia.”

She also noted that there has been a push in recent years to simplify regimens, particularly in older patients.

“We really want to avoid rapid-acting insulin in older patients because we’re afraid of hypoglycemia, so we start them on basal and keep the noninsulins like metformin and sulfonylureas around. Initially those control the postprandial blood sugar but over time they’re no longer enough.”
 

Options exist for addressing postmeal blood sugar highs while minimizing lows

While in the past adding premeal insulin was the only option, today there are alternatives for addressing postmeal hyperglycemia, at least in the short term.

Dr. Cowart advised that the first step is to have patients self-monitor their blood glucose and titrate their basal insulin to address fasting hyperglycemia first. Once that appropriate dose is reached, if the patient’s hemoglobin A1c is still above target, the next step is to evaluate the need for postmeal control.

For patients who are at high cardiovascular risk, the next step might involve adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) instead of premeal insulin. But for patients in whom overbasalization is the main concern, a GLP-1RA might be the better choice since it will have a greater impact on postprandial glucose levels, while an SGLT2i will have more effect on fasting blood sugar, he said.

Another option is to use a fixed-dose combination of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), provided there aren’t cost or formulary barriers. “We want to use the right combination of drugs and not use too much of one to lead to hypoglycemia,” Dr. Cowart said.

Dr. McCoy doesn’t use fixed-dose combinations because they don’t allow as much flexibility in dosing. To correct overbasalization, she also recommends adding either a GLP-1RA or SGLT2i instead of premeal insulin. However, she cautions, “you still have to monitor those patients because after a few years it still won’t be enough and you’ll have to add mealtime insulin.”

If cost or lack of coverage prevents a patient’s use of SLGT2i/GLP-1RAs, Dr. McCoy said that adding just one premeal injection of rapid-acting insulin before the largest meal of the day is one option. Another is to use twice-daily NPH insulin instead of analog basal insulin, since that does offer some postprandial coverage.

Dr. Cowart said his approach in cost barrier situations is to try to use patient assistance programs and to look into the patient’s formulary to see if there is step therapy or tier considerations, and maybe have a discussion with the insurance company. “We often have to navigate that, and it does take a significant amount of time and could potentially delay patients getting the right therapy when it’s warranted. That is an area where there is a particular role for pharmacists in helping to overcome that and get patients on the right drugs,” he explained.
 

Problem may be even more common; testing is key

Dr. McCoy said that the A1c cutoff of 8% used to define overbasalization in the study probably resulted in an underestimation of the problem, since many patients are experiencing nighttime hypoglycemia from the basal insulin. The lows bring down their A1c level, but they’re still experiencing postmeal highs.

“I think they’re missing a lot of people, to be honest. I see a lot of patients with A1cs that aren’t that bad, say 7.5%, and their fasting blood sugars are okay, but if you were to put a [continuous glucose monitor] on those patients, invariably there’s hypoglycemia at night that no one knew about.”

Of course, for insurance reasons, most people with type 2 diabetes don’t currently have access to continuous glucose monitors. And often those who are not taking multiple daily injections are limited to one fingerstick test strip a day.

Dr. McCoy says that if hypoglycemia is a concern she will write a prior authorization justifying more test strips.

“I state explicitly in my notes why I recommend frequent monitoring. If they’re on a sulfonylurea, they should be able to check more frequently because they can have hypoglycemia. Same thing with basal insulin.”

Dr. McCoy advises that patients test their blood sugar 2 hours after the largest meal on one day, and at other times on different days. “Blood glucose after a meal shouldn’t be more than 200 [mg/dL]. If it is, that’s not a failure of basal insulin. It’s doing its job. You just need a different agent.”

Dr. Cowart has no disclosures. Dr. McCoy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Overuse of basal insulin rather than adding therapies that target mealtime glucose levels is a common problem in primary care management of type 2 diabetes that impedes achievement of optimal glycemic control, new research suggests.

Such ‘overbasalization,’ defined as a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 8% despite use of more than 0.5 units/kg per day of basal insulin, was identified in about 40% of patients seen in a Florida primary care clinic during 2015-2018. The findings were published in the April 2021 issue of Clinical Diabetes by Kevin Cowart, PharmD, a diabetes care and education specialist at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and colleagues.

The literature suggests that once people with type 2 diabetes start basal insulin, the chance that they’ll achieve a given hemoglobin A1c target, i.e., less than 7%, diminishes significantly if that goal isn’t achieved within the first year of starting insulin, Dr. Cowart said in an interview.

“Our analysis suggests that overbasalization plays a role in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin not achieving optimal glycemic control. Basal insulin is not designed to address postprandial hyperglycemia. I think there’s a clear need to address hesitancy in therapeutic progression beyond basal insulin. A lot of factors underlie the delays, with therapeutic inertia being one of them. It’s complex,” he said.
 

Overbasalization seen in large proportion of patients

The study comprised 655 adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes for at least a year who received a prescription for a basal insulin (glargine U-100, glargine U-300, detemir, degludec U-100, degludec U-200, regular U-500, or NPH insulin).

The patients had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4% and a mean basal insulin dose 0.4 units/kg per day. The prevalence of overbasalization was 38.1% for those with hemoglobin A1c above 8%, 42.7% for those with A1c of 9% or above, and 42% with A1c of 10% or greater.

Patient characteristics independently associated with overbasalization were age 35-54 years (odds ratio 1.89), age 65-80 years (0.44), A1c 9% or greater (13.97), and A1c 10% or greater (6.04). Having a prescription for insulin glargine U-100 was associated with a lower overbasalization risk (0.62). In multivariate analysis, only an A1c of 9% or greater remained significant.

Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, an endocrinologist and primary care clinician at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that she sees [overbasalization] frequently in patients who are referred to her. “It’s kind of that wall that patients with type 2 diabetes hit because their A1c is high but their fasting blood sugars are normal. Sometimes it’s assumed that there’s a discrepancy, because people don’t always think about postprandial hyperglycemia.”

She also noted that there has been a push in recent years to simplify regimens, particularly in older patients.

“We really want to avoid rapid-acting insulin in older patients because we’re afraid of hypoglycemia, so we start them on basal and keep the noninsulins like metformin and sulfonylureas around. Initially those control the postprandial blood sugar but over time they’re no longer enough.”
 

Options exist for addressing postmeal blood sugar highs while minimizing lows

While in the past adding premeal insulin was the only option, today there are alternatives for addressing postmeal hyperglycemia, at least in the short term.

Dr. Cowart advised that the first step is to have patients self-monitor their blood glucose and titrate their basal insulin to address fasting hyperglycemia first. Once that appropriate dose is reached, if the patient’s hemoglobin A1c is still above target, the next step is to evaluate the need for postmeal control.

For patients who are at high cardiovascular risk, the next step might involve adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) or a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) instead of premeal insulin. But for patients in whom overbasalization is the main concern, a GLP-1RA might be the better choice since it will have a greater impact on postprandial glucose levels, while an SGLT2i will have more effect on fasting blood sugar, he said.

Another option is to use a fixed-dose combination of basal insulin and a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), provided there aren’t cost or formulary barriers. “We want to use the right combination of drugs and not use too much of one to lead to hypoglycemia,” Dr. Cowart said.

Dr. McCoy doesn’t use fixed-dose combinations because they don’t allow as much flexibility in dosing. To correct overbasalization, she also recommends adding either a GLP-1RA or SGLT2i instead of premeal insulin. However, she cautions, “you still have to monitor those patients because after a few years it still won’t be enough and you’ll have to add mealtime insulin.”

If cost or lack of coverage prevents a patient’s use of SLGT2i/GLP-1RAs, Dr. McCoy said that adding just one premeal injection of rapid-acting insulin before the largest meal of the day is one option. Another is to use twice-daily NPH insulin instead of analog basal insulin, since that does offer some postprandial coverage.

Dr. Cowart said his approach in cost barrier situations is to try to use patient assistance programs and to look into the patient’s formulary to see if there is step therapy or tier considerations, and maybe have a discussion with the insurance company. “We often have to navigate that, and it does take a significant amount of time and could potentially delay patients getting the right therapy when it’s warranted. That is an area where there is a particular role for pharmacists in helping to overcome that and get patients on the right drugs,” he explained.
 

Problem may be even more common; testing is key

Dr. McCoy said that the A1c cutoff of 8% used to define overbasalization in the study probably resulted in an underestimation of the problem, since many patients are experiencing nighttime hypoglycemia from the basal insulin. The lows bring down their A1c level, but they’re still experiencing postmeal highs.

“I think they’re missing a lot of people, to be honest. I see a lot of patients with A1cs that aren’t that bad, say 7.5%, and their fasting blood sugars are okay, but if you were to put a [continuous glucose monitor] on those patients, invariably there’s hypoglycemia at night that no one knew about.”

Of course, for insurance reasons, most people with type 2 diabetes don’t currently have access to continuous glucose monitors. And often those who are not taking multiple daily injections are limited to one fingerstick test strip a day.

Dr. McCoy says that if hypoglycemia is a concern she will write a prior authorization justifying more test strips.

“I state explicitly in my notes why I recommend frequent monitoring. If they’re on a sulfonylurea, they should be able to check more frequently because they can have hypoglycemia. Same thing with basal insulin.”

Dr. McCoy advises that patients test their blood sugar 2 hours after the largest meal on one day, and at other times on different days. “Blood glucose after a meal shouldn’t be more than 200 [mg/dL]. If it is, that’s not a failure of basal insulin. It’s doing its job. You just need a different agent.”

Dr. Cowart has no disclosures. Dr. McCoy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.

Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.

amenic181/Getty Images

Large cohort adds credibility

Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.

But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.

“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.

Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.

Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.

amenic181/Getty Images

Large cohort adds credibility

Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.

But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.

“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.

Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.

Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.

amenic181/Getty Images

Large cohort adds credibility

Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.

But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.

“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.

Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Mortality is two to three times higher in patients with adrenal incidentalomas who have autonomous cortisol secretion levels of 83 nmol/L (3 µg/dL) or more after a 1 mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST), compared with those with levels below this, new research finds.

Autonomous cortisol secretion (ACS) has been linked to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and early mortality, and risks vary by cortisol level.

“To adequately decide whether treatment should be surgery or medical management of possible complications, it is essential to know the risk associated with the actual level of ACS,” write Albin Kjellbom, MD, of Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published May 25 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Asked to comment, Salila Kurra, MD, of the Columbia adrenal center, Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “this idea that mild cortisol excess that doesn’t meet the threshold for overt Cushing’s can, in and of itself, cause increased morbidity and mortality is something people have been thinking about for many years now.”

“But there isn’t very clear guidance on exactly what to do in that situation, whether the incidentaloma should be removed, medically managed, or the patient should just be watched ... It may be clinically significant, but the way to sort that out is to do other testing.”   
 

Most deaths were from cardiovascular disease or cancer

Adrenal lesions are found incidentally in approximately 2% to 7% of the adult population who undergo abdominal imaging, and up to a third of those have ACS in the absence of clinical signs of Cushing syndrome.

European guidelines state that a plasma cortisol level of 138 nmol/L (5 µg/dL) or greater following DST defines ACS, and a level less than 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) rules it out, while values 50-137 (1.8-5 µg/dL) are deemed “possible” ACS.

For their study, the authors retrospectively analyzed 1,048 consecutive patients with adrenal incidentalomas seen at two Swedish hospitals between 2005 and September 2015 who were followed for up to 14 years.

The patients were a median age of 64.9 years, and 58.5% were women.

At baseline, 45.1% had a cortisol level of 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) or higher following DST, 52.9% had hypertension, 18.7% had diabetes, and 20.6% had a medical history of one or more cardiovascular events. A total of 54 patients underwent adrenalectomy, eight of them more than 2 years after the DST.

Researchers found a linear increase in mortality risk with increasing cortisol values up to 200 nmol/L (7.25 µg/dL) following DST.

Over 14 years, 16.2% (170 patients) died. Compared with cortisol less than 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) following DST, adjusted hazard ratios for mortality were 2.30 and 3.04 for cortisol levels 83 to 137 nmol/L (3-5 µg/dL) and 138 nmol/L (5 µg/dL) or greater, respectively, and both were significant.

Among the patients who died, causes of death were cardiovascular disease in 38%, cancer in 30%, infection in 4%, and other diseases in 28%.

Patients with post-DST cortisol levels of 83 nmol/L (3 µg/dL) or higher had increased cardiovascular mortality, while those with levels of 50-82 nmol/L (1.8-3.0 µg/dL) did not. In contrast, mortality rates from cancer, infection, and other diseases didn’t vary across groups.
 

Implications: Further testing, prospective studies needed

“The increase in mortality associated with cortisol DST values of 83 nmol/L or higher has implications,” the authors say.

“We suggest [medical] treatment of known cardiovascular risk factors in these patients and incorporation of our results in the decision about which patients to recommend for adrenalectomy.”

In contrast, ACS with lower cortisol (<83 nmol/L or 3 µg/dL) following DST “is not associated with clinically relevant increased mortality within 5 to 10 years,” they observe.

Dr. Kurra said she would perform further testing for any patient with an adrenal incidentaloma and a cortisol level 50-137 nmol/L (1.8-5 µg/dL) following DST: Specifically, a dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) test.

“If DHEAS is low and the patient has metabolic complications, then I will work them up more, with adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) and 24-hour urine and go down that path of looking for the extent of overproduction of cortisol.”

She recommended an algorithm published in 2017 of an age- and sex-adjusted DHEAS ratio that provides a sensitive and specific screening test for subclinical hypercortisolism in patients with adrenal incidentalomas.

In further analyses by Dr. Kjellbom and colleagues into incidentaloma size, bilateralism, basal ACTH less than 2.0 pmol/L, or DHEAS less than 1.04 mmol/L, only DHEAS significantly predicted mortality.

“This should be studied further, specific to sex, age, and [post-DST]-cortisol strata,” Dr. Kjellbom and colleagues say.

In conclusion, Dr. Kurra said the new data “confirm something that people have postulated. But because it’s a retrospective review, we need prospective studies. It is an interesting finding that needs further study before we can change clinical practice.”

The study was funded by unrestricted grants from the Lisa and Johan Grönberg Foundation and the Gyllenstiernska Krapperup Foundation. Dr. Kjellbom and Dr. Kurra have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mortality is two to three times higher in patients with adrenal incidentalomas who have autonomous cortisol secretion levels of 83 nmol/L (3 µg/dL) or more after a 1 mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST), compared with those with levels below this, new research finds.

Autonomous cortisol secretion (ACS) has been linked to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and early mortality, and risks vary by cortisol level.

“To adequately decide whether treatment should be surgery or medical management of possible complications, it is essential to know the risk associated with the actual level of ACS,” write Albin Kjellbom, MD, of Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published May 25 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Asked to comment, Salila Kurra, MD, of the Columbia adrenal center, Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “this idea that mild cortisol excess that doesn’t meet the threshold for overt Cushing’s can, in and of itself, cause increased morbidity and mortality is something people have been thinking about for many years now.”

“But there isn’t very clear guidance on exactly what to do in that situation, whether the incidentaloma should be removed, medically managed, or the patient should just be watched ... It may be clinically significant, but the way to sort that out is to do other testing.”   
 

Most deaths were from cardiovascular disease or cancer

Adrenal lesions are found incidentally in approximately 2% to 7% of the adult population who undergo abdominal imaging, and up to a third of those have ACS in the absence of clinical signs of Cushing syndrome.

European guidelines state that a plasma cortisol level of 138 nmol/L (5 µg/dL) or greater following DST defines ACS, and a level less than 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) rules it out, while values 50-137 (1.8-5 µg/dL) are deemed “possible” ACS.

For their study, the authors retrospectively analyzed 1,048 consecutive patients with adrenal incidentalomas seen at two Swedish hospitals between 2005 and September 2015 who were followed for up to 14 years.

The patients were a median age of 64.9 years, and 58.5% were women.

At baseline, 45.1% had a cortisol level of 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) or higher following DST, 52.9% had hypertension, 18.7% had diabetes, and 20.6% had a medical history of one or more cardiovascular events. A total of 54 patients underwent adrenalectomy, eight of them more than 2 years after the DST.

Researchers found a linear increase in mortality risk with increasing cortisol values up to 200 nmol/L (7.25 µg/dL) following DST.

Over 14 years, 16.2% (170 patients) died. Compared with cortisol less than 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) following DST, adjusted hazard ratios for mortality were 2.30 and 3.04 for cortisol levels 83 to 137 nmol/L (3-5 µg/dL) and 138 nmol/L (5 µg/dL) or greater, respectively, and both were significant.

Among the patients who died, causes of death were cardiovascular disease in 38%, cancer in 30%, infection in 4%, and other diseases in 28%.

Patients with post-DST cortisol levels of 83 nmol/L (3 µg/dL) or higher had increased cardiovascular mortality, while those with levels of 50-82 nmol/L (1.8-3.0 µg/dL) did not. In contrast, mortality rates from cancer, infection, and other diseases didn’t vary across groups.
 

Implications: Further testing, prospective studies needed

“The increase in mortality associated with cortisol DST values of 83 nmol/L or higher has implications,” the authors say.

“We suggest [medical] treatment of known cardiovascular risk factors in these patients and incorporation of our results in the decision about which patients to recommend for adrenalectomy.”

In contrast, ACS with lower cortisol (<83 nmol/L or 3 µg/dL) following DST “is not associated with clinically relevant increased mortality within 5 to 10 years,” they observe.

Dr. Kurra said she would perform further testing for any patient with an adrenal incidentaloma and a cortisol level 50-137 nmol/L (1.8-5 µg/dL) following DST: Specifically, a dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) test.

“If DHEAS is low and the patient has metabolic complications, then I will work them up more, with adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) and 24-hour urine and go down that path of looking for the extent of overproduction of cortisol.”

She recommended an algorithm published in 2017 of an age- and sex-adjusted DHEAS ratio that provides a sensitive and specific screening test for subclinical hypercortisolism in patients with adrenal incidentalomas.

In further analyses by Dr. Kjellbom and colleagues into incidentaloma size, bilateralism, basal ACTH less than 2.0 pmol/L, or DHEAS less than 1.04 mmol/L, only DHEAS significantly predicted mortality.

“This should be studied further, specific to sex, age, and [post-DST]-cortisol strata,” Dr. Kjellbom and colleagues say.

In conclusion, Dr. Kurra said the new data “confirm something that people have postulated. But because it’s a retrospective review, we need prospective studies. It is an interesting finding that needs further study before we can change clinical practice.”

The study was funded by unrestricted grants from the Lisa and Johan Grönberg Foundation and the Gyllenstiernska Krapperup Foundation. Dr. Kjellbom and Dr. Kurra have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mortality is two to three times higher in patients with adrenal incidentalomas who have autonomous cortisol secretion levels of 83 nmol/L (3 µg/dL) or more after a 1 mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST), compared with those with levels below this, new research finds.

Autonomous cortisol secretion (ACS) has been linked to hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and early mortality, and risks vary by cortisol level.

“To adequately decide whether treatment should be surgery or medical management of possible complications, it is essential to know the risk associated with the actual level of ACS,” write Albin Kjellbom, MD, of Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, and colleagues, in their article published May 25 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Asked to comment, Salila Kurra, MD, of the Columbia adrenal center, Columbia University, New York, told this news organization that “this idea that mild cortisol excess that doesn’t meet the threshold for overt Cushing’s can, in and of itself, cause increased morbidity and mortality is something people have been thinking about for many years now.”

“But there isn’t very clear guidance on exactly what to do in that situation, whether the incidentaloma should be removed, medically managed, or the patient should just be watched ... It may be clinically significant, but the way to sort that out is to do other testing.”   
 

Most deaths were from cardiovascular disease or cancer

Adrenal lesions are found incidentally in approximately 2% to 7% of the adult population who undergo abdominal imaging, and up to a third of those have ACS in the absence of clinical signs of Cushing syndrome.

European guidelines state that a plasma cortisol level of 138 nmol/L (5 µg/dL) or greater following DST defines ACS, and a level less than 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) rules it out, while values 50-137 (1.8-5 µg/dL) are deemed “possible” ACS.

For their study, the authors retrospectively analyzed 1,048 consecutive patients with adrenal incidentalomas seen at two Swedish hospitals between 2005 and September 2015 who were followed for up to 14 years.

The patients were a median age of 64.9 years, and 58.5% were women.

At baseline, 45.1% had a cortisol level of 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) or higher following DST, 52.9% had hypertension, 18.7% had diabetes, and 20.6% had a medical history of one or more cardiovascular events. A total of 54 patients underwent adrenalectomy, eight of them more than 2 years after the DST.

Researchers found a linear increase in mortality risk with increasing cortisol values up to 200 nmol/L (7.25 µg/dL) following DST.

Over 14 years, 16.2% (170 patients) died. Compared with cortisol less than 50 nmol/L (1.8 µg/dL) following DST, adjusted hazard ratios for mortality were 2.30 and 3.04 for cortisol levels 83 to 137 nmol/L (3-5 µg/dL) and 138 nmol/L (5 µg/dL) or greater, respectively, and both were significant.

Among the patients who died, causes of death were cardiovascular disease in 38%, cancer in 30%, infection in 4%, and other diseases in 28%.

Patients with post-DST cortisol levels of 83 nmol/L (3 µg/dL) or higher had increased cardiovascular mortality, while those with levels of 50-82 nmol/L (1.8-3.0 µg/dL) did not. In contrast, mortality rates from cancer, infection, and other diseases didn’t vary across groups.
 

Implications: Further testing, prospective studies needed

“The increase in mortality associated with cortisol DST values of 83 nmol/L or higher has implications,” the authors say.

“We suggest [medical] treatment of known cardiovascular risk factors in these patients and incorporation of our results in the decision about which patients to recommend for adrenalectomy.”

In contrast, ACS with lower cortisol (<83 nmol/L or 3 µg/dL) following DST “is not associated with clinically relevant increased mortality within 5 to 10 years,” they observe.

Dr. Kurra said she would perform further testing for any patient with an adrenal incidentaloma and a cortisol level 50-137 nmol/L (1.8-5 µg/dL) following DST: Specifically, a dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) test.

“If DHEAS is low and the patient has metabolic complications, then I will work them up more, with adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) and 24-hour urine and go down that path of looking for the extent of overproduction of cortisol.”

She recommended an algorithm published in 2017 of an age- and sex-adjusted DHEAS ratio that provides a sensitive and specific screening test for subclinical hypercortisolism in patients with adrenal incidentalomas.

In further analyses by Dr. Kjellbom and colleagues into incidentaloma size, bilateralism, basal ACTH less than 2.0 pmol/L, or DHEAS less than 1.04 mmol/L, only DHEAS significantly predicted mortality.

“This should be studied further, specific to sex, age, and [post-DST]-cortisol strata,” Dr. Kjellbom and colleagues say.

In conclusion, Dr. Kurra said the new data “confirm something that people have postulated. But because it’s a retrospective review, we need prospective studies. It is an interesting finding that needs further study before we can change clinical practice.”

The study was funded by unrestricted grants from the Lisa and Johan Grönberg Foundation and the Gyllenstiernska Krapperup Foundation. Dr. Kjellbom and Dr. Kurra have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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