Diabetes Hub

TOPLINE:

The inclusion of sugar-substitute sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in a sugar-reduced maintenance diet following weight loss improves weight maintenance as well as well-being in adults, with no increases in type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease risk compared with a diet excluding the sweeteners, a randomized trial showed.

The study also showed that among overweight or obese children, greater reductions in uncontrolled eating were observed among those receiving the sweeteners.

The findings counter previous reports that raised concerns about the non-sugar sweeteners, including recent research from the World Health Organization suggesting no benefits in weight control and a possible increase in the risk for type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease with the sweeteners.

METHODOLOGY:

• The findings are from an exploratory analysis of the multicenter, randomized SWEET trial.
• The trial involved 341 adults with overweight or obesity (aged 18-65 years, 71% women, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and 38 children with overweight (aged 6-12 years, 60% girls, BMI-for-age > 85th percentile), recruited in Denmark, Spain, Greece, and the Netherlands through webpages, social media, newspapers, and registries.
• For the first 2 months of the trial, adults were instructed to follow a low-energy diet (the Cambridge Weight Plan) with the goal of achieving at least 5% weight loss, while children received dietary advice to maintain body weight.
• In the subsequent 10 months, adults as well as children were randomized to healthy diets that either consisted of less than 10% of calories from added sugar but permitted foods and drinks with sweeteners and sweetness enhancers, or the same diet but not allowing the use of the sweeteners or sweetness enhancers.
• Participants had weight, BMI, anthropometry, and risk markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease monitored at the trial’s baseline, as well as at 2, 6, and 12 months.
• In addition, participants completed food frequency questionnaires and provided urine samples to assess biomarkers of the sweeteners, fructose and sucrose, in order to measure compliance with the dietary instructions.

TAKEAWAY:

• While the sweetener and non-sweetener groups both had decreases in consumption of products high in sugar, the reduction was significantly higher in the group that allowed use of the sweeteners (P = .002).
• In the intention-to-treat analyses, adults (n = 277) permitted sweeteners showed a small but significantly greater weight loss maintenance after 1 year than the non-sweetener group (average weight loss, 7.2 kg vs 5.6 kg; P = .029).
• Among 203 participants who completed the trial, there were no differences between the groups in terms of markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
• There were also no differences between the groups in terms of subjective appetite sensations and appetite hormones in a subgroup of 104 patients.
• In an analysis of 22 children who completed the study, there were no differences in BMI-for-age z scores between sweetener and non-sweetener groups.
• In terms of effects on eating behavior, adults in the sweetener group reported greater diet satisfaction when eating out (P = .03), increased positive mood (P = .013), and reduced craving for sweet food (P = .034) at 6 months than in the non-sweetener group.
• Conversely, those receiving no sweeteners had a greater liking bias for sweet vs savory foods at 6 months (P = .023) and 12 months (P = .005).
• There were no differences between the groups in reported physical activity or quality of life.
• However, among children with higher uncontrolled eating scores at baseline, the uncontrolled eating scores at 12 months were significantly lower among children who were allowed the sugar-substitute sweeteners vs the non-sweetener children (P = .021).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the inclusion of low/no energy-sweetened products may benefit children who show high levels of uncontrolled eating,” said the study’s co-lead author, Clarissa Dakin, of the Appetite Control and Energy Balance Research Group at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England, in a press statement.

“Together, these findings provide important insights for the ongoing reevaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies worldwide,” she said.

Coauthor Jason Halford, head of the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds, added in the press statement that “the use of low-calorie sweeteners in weight management has been questioned, in part because of the link between their use and apparent weight gain in observational studies.”

“However, increasingly, it is becoming apparent that is not the case in long-term studies,” said a study co-author in a press statement.”

SOURCE:

The findings from the two abstracts will be presented in May at the European Association for the Study of Obesity. The study abstracts were issued in advance.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the results, particularly in children’s subgroups, were limited by the relatively low number of children, underscoring the need for future studies on the issue, the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Halford has received research funding from the American Beverage Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The inclusion of sugar-substitute sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in a sugar-reduced maintenance diet following weight loss improves weight maintenance as well as well-being in adults, with no increases in type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease risk compared with a diet excluding the sweeteners, a randomized trial showed.

The study also showed that among overweight or obese children, greater reductions in uncontrolled eating were observed among those receiving the sweeteners.

The findings counter previous reports that raised concerns about the non-sugar sweeteners, including recent research from the World Health Organization suggesting no benefits in weight control and a possible increase in the risk for type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease with the sweeteners.

METHODOLOGY:

• The findings are from an exploratory analysis of the multicenter, randomized SWEET trial.
• The trial involved 341 adults with overweight or obesity (aged 18-65 years, 71% women, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and 38 children with overweight (aged 6-12 years, 60% girls, BMI-for-age > 85th percentile), recruited in Denmark, Spain, Greece, and the Netherlands through webpages, social media, newspapers, and registries.
• For the first 2 months of the trial, adults were instructed to follow a low-energy diet (the Cambridge Weight Plan) with the goal of achieving at least 5% weight loss, while children received dietary advice to maintain body weight.
• In the subsequent 10 months, adults as well as children were randomized to healthy diets that either consisted of less than 10% of calories from added sugar but permitted foods and drinks with sweeteners and sweetness enhancers, or the same diet but not allowing the use of the sweeteners or sweetness enhancers.
• Participants had weight, BMI, anthropometry, and risk markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease monitored at the trial’s baseline, as well as at 2, 6, and 12 months.
• In addition, participants completed food frequency questionnaires and provided urine samples to assess biomarkers of the sweeteners, fructose and sucrose, in order to measure compliance with the dietary instructions.

TAKEAWAY:

• While the sweetener and non-sweetener groups both had decreases in consumption of products high in sugar, the reduction was significantly higher in the group that allowed use of the sweeteners (P = .002).
• In the intention-to-treat analyses, adults (n = 277) permitted sweeteners showed a small but significantly greater weight loss maintenance after 1 year than the non-sweetener group (average weight loss, 7.2 kg vs 5.6 kg; P = .029).
• Among 203 participants who completed the trial, there were no differences between the groups in terms of markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
• There were also no differences between the groups in terms of subjective appetite sensations and appetite hormones in a subgroup of 104 patients.
• In an analysis of 22 children who completed the study, there were no differences in BMI-for-age z scores between sweetener and non-sweetener groups.
• In terms of effects on eating behavior, adults in the sweetener group reported greater diet satisfaction when eating out (P = .03), increased positive mood (P = .013), and reduced craving for sweet food (P = .034) at 6 months than in the non-sweetener group.
• Conversely, those receiving no sweeteners had a greater liking bias for sweet vs savory foods at 6 months (P = .023) and 12 months (P = .005).
• There were no differences between the groups in reported physical activity or quality of life.
• However, among children with higher uncontrolled eating scores at baseline, the uncontrolled eating scores at 12 months were significantly lower among children who were allowed the sugar-substitute sweeteners vs the non-sweetener children (P = .021).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the inclusion of low/no energy-sweetened products may benefit children who show high levels of uncontrolled eating,” said the study’s co-lead author, Clarissa Dakin, of the Appetite Control and Energy Balance Research Group at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England, in a press statement.

“Together, these findings provide important insights for the ongoing reevaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies worldwide,” she said.

Coauthor Jason Halford, head of the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds, added in the press statement that “the use of low-calorie sweeteners in weight management has been questioned, in part because of the link between their use and apparent weight gain in observational studies.”

“However, increasingly, it is becoming apparent that is not the case in long-term studies,” said a study co-author in a press statement.”

SOURCE:

The findings from the two abstracts will be presented in May at the European Association for the Study of Obesity. The study abstracts were issued in advance.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the results, particularly in children’s subgroups, were limited by the relatively low number of children, underscoring the need for future studies on the issue, the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Halford has received research funding from the American Beverage Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The inclusion of sugar-substitute sweeteners and sweetness enhancers in a sugar-reduced maintenance diet following weight loss improves weight maintenance as well as well-being in adults, with no increases in type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease risk compared with a diet excluding the sweeteners, a randomized trial showed.

The study also showed that among overweight or obese children, greater reductions in uncontrolled eating were observed among those receiving the sweeteners.

The findings counter previous reports that raised concerns about the non-sugar sweeteners, including recent research from the World Health Organization suggesting no benefits in weight control and a possible increase in the risk for type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease with the sweeteners.

METHODOLOGY:

• The findings are from an exploratory analysis of the multicenter, randomized SWEET trial.
• The trial involved 341 adults with overweight or obesity (aged 18-65 years, 71% women, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and 38 children with overweight (aged 6-12 years, 60% girls, BMI-for-age > 85th percentile), recruited in Denmark, Spain, Greece, and the Netherlands through webpages, social media, newspapers, and registries.
• For the first 2 months of the trial, adults were instructed to follow a low-energy diet (the Cambridge Weight Plan) with the goal of achieving at least 5% weight loss, while children received dietary advice to maintain body weight.
• In the subsequent 10 months, adults as well as children were randomized to healthy diets that either consisted of less than 10% of calories from added sugar but permitted foods and drinks with sweeteners and sweetness enhancers, or the same diet but not allowing the use of the sweeteners or sweetness enhancers.
• Participants had weight, BMI, anthropometry, and risk markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease monitored at the trial’s baseline, as well as at 2, 6, and 12 months.
• In addition, participants completed food frequency questionnaires and provided urine samples to assess biomarkers of the sweeteners, fructose and sucrose, in order to measure compliance with the dietary instructions.

TAKEAWAY:

• While the sweetener and non-sweetener groups both had decreases in consumption of products high in sugar, the reduction was significantly higher in the group that allowed use of the sweeteners (P = .002).
• In the intention-to-treat analyses, adults (n = 277) permitted sweeteners showed a small but significantly greater weight loss maintenance after 1 year than the non-sweetener group (average weight loss, 7.2 kg vs 5.6 kg; P = .029).
• Among 203 participants who completed the trial, there were no differences between the groups in terms of markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
• There were also no differences between the groups in terms of subjective appetite sensations and appetite hormones in a subgroup of 104 patients.
• In an analysis of 22 children who completed the study, there were no differences in BMI-for-age z scores between sweetener and non-sweetener groups.
• In terms of effects on eating behavior, adults in the sweetener group reported greater diet satisfaction when eating out (P = .03), increased positive mood (P = .013), and reduced craving for sweet food (P = .034) at 6 months than in the non-sweetener group.
• Conversely, those receiving no sweeteners had a greater liking bias for sweet vs savory foods at 6 months (P = .023) and 12 months (P = .005).
• There were no differences between the groups in reported physical activity or quality of life.
• However, among children with higher uncontrolled eating scores at baseline, the uncontrolled eating scores at 12 months were significantly lower among children who were allowed the sugar-substitute sweeteners vs the non-sweetener children (P = .021).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that the inclusion of low/no energy-sweetened products may benefit children who show high levels of uncontrolled eating,” said the study’s co-lead author, Clarissa Dakin, of the Appetite Control and Energy Balance Research Group at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England, in a press statement.

“Together, these findings provide important insights for the ongoing reevaluation of food additive sweeteners by the European Food Safety Authority and other health agencies worldwide,” she said.

Coauthor Jason Halford, head of the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds, added in the press statement that “the use of low-calorie sweeteners in weight management has been questioned, in part because of the link between their use and apparent weight gain in observational studies.”

“However, increasingly, it is becoming apparent that is not the case in long-term studies,” said a study co-author in a press statement.”

SOURCE:

The findings from the two abstracts will be presented in May at the European Association for the Study of Obesity. The study abstracts were issued in advance.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the results, particularly in children’s subgroups, were limited by the relatively low number of children, underscoring the need for future studies on the issue, the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Halford has received research funding from the American Beverage Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than a billion children, adolescents, and adults are living with obesity, globally, with rates of obesity among children and adolescents quadrupling between 1990 and 2022.

Obesity rates nearly tripled among adult men and more than doubled among women during the time period, according to results from a collaboration between the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The rates of being underweight have meanwhile declined, making obesity now the most common form of malnutrition in most regions.

METHODOLOGY:

In this global analysis, the authors evaluated 3663 population-based studies conducted in 200 countries and territories, with data on 222 million participants in the general population, including height and weight.

Trends were established according to categories of body mass index (BMI) in groups of adults aged 20 years or older, representing 150 million individuals, and 63 million school-aged children and adolescents aged 5-19 years, spanning from 1990 to 2022.

Assessments of adults focus on the individual and combined prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²).

For school-aged children and adolescents, assessments were for thinness (BMI < 2 standard deviation [SD] below the median of the WHO growth reference) and obesity (BMI > 2 SD above the median).

TAKEAWAY:

The combined prevalence of obesity as well as underweight increased over the study period in most countries for women (162 countries, 81%) and men (140 countries, 70%), with increases driven by increases in obesity in nearly all countries, while underweight or thinness rates decreased.

In 2022, obesity rates were higher than underweight in 177 countries (89%) for women and 145 countries (73%) for men.

Likewise, among school-aged children and adolescents, obesity in 2022 was more prevalent than thinness among girls in 130 countries (67%) and boys in 125 countries (63%), while thinness was more prevalent in only 18% and 21% of the countries, respectively.

In 2022, the combined prevalence of underweight and obesity was highest in island nations in the Caribbean and Polynesia and Micronesia, as well as in countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Among school-aged children, the countries with the highest combined prevalence of underweight and obesity were Polynesia and Micronesia and the Caribbean for both sexes and Chile and Qatar for boys.

The prevalence of obesity surpassed 60% among women in eight countries (4%) and men in six countries (3%), all in Polynesia and Micronesia.

In the United States, the obesity rate increased from 21.2% in 1990 to 43.8% in 2022 for women and from 16.9% to 41.6% in 2022 for men.

As of 2022, the prevalence of obesity in the United States ranked 36th highest in the world for women and 10th highest in the world for men.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is very concerning that the epidemic of obesity that was evident among adults in much of the world in 1990 is now mirrored in school-aged children and adolescents,” senior author Majid Ezzati, PhD, of Imperial College of London, said in a press statement.

“At the same time, hundreds of millions are still affected by undernutrition, particularly in some of the poorest parts of the world,” he said. “To successfully tackle both forms of malnutrition, it is vital we significantly improve the availability and affordability of healthy, nutritious foods.”

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, WHO Director-General, added in the press statement that “this new study highlights the importance of preventing and managing obesity from early life to adulthood, through diet, physical activity, and adequate care, as needed.

“Getting back on track to meet the global targets for curbing obesity will take the work of governments and communities, supported by evidence-based policies from WHO and national public health agencies,” he said.

“Importantly, it requires the cooperation of the private sector, which must be accountable for the health impacts of their products.”

SOURCE:

The study was published on February 29, 2024, in The Lancet. The study was conducted by the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration and the WHO.

LIMITATIONS:

Data differences in countries included that some had limited data and three had none, requiring some estimates to be formed using data from other countries. Data availability was also lower among the youngest and oldest patients, increasing uncertainty of data in those age groups. In addition, data from health surveys can be subject to error, and BMI can be an imperfect measure of the extent or distribution of body fat.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and the European Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than a billion children, adolescents, and adults are living with obesity, globally, with rates of obesity among children and adolescents quadrupling between 1990 and 2022.

Obesity rates nearly tripled among adult men and more than doubled among women during the time period, according to results from a collaboration between the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The rates of being underweight have meanwhile declined, making obesity now the most common form of malnutrition in most regions.

METHODOLOGY:

In this global analysis, the authors evaluated 3663 population-based studies conducted in 200 countries and territories, with data on 222 million participants in the general population, including height and weight.

Trends were established according to categories of body mass index (BMI) in groups of adults aged 20 years or older, representing 150 million individuals, and 63 million school-aged children and adolescents aged 5-19 years, spanning from 1990 to 2022.

Assessments of adults focus on the individual and combined prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²).

For school-aged children and adolescents, assessments were for thinness (BMI < 2 standard deviation [SD] below the median of the WHO growth reference) and obesity (BMI > 2 SD above the median).

TAKEAWAY:

The combined prevalence of obesity as well as underweight increased over the study period in most countries for women (162 countries, 81%) and men (140 countries, 70%), with increases driven by increases in obesity in nearly all countries, while underweight or thinness rates decreased.

In 2022, obesity rates were higher than underweight in 177 countries (89%) for women and 145 countries (73%) for men.

Likewise, among school-aged children and adolescents, obesity in 2022 was more prevalent than thinness among girls in 130 countries (67%) and boys in 125 countries (63%), while thinness was more prevalent in only 18% and 21% of the countries, respectively.

In 2022, the combined prevalence of underweight and obesity was highest in island nations in the Caribbean and Polynesia and Micronesia, as well as in countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Among school-aged children, the countries with the highest combined prevalence of underweight and obesity were Polynesia and Micronesia and the Caribbean for both sexes and Chile and Qatar for boys.

The prevalence of obesity surpassed 60% among women in eight countries (4%) and men in six countries (3%), all in Polynesia and Micronesia.

In the United States, the obesity rate increased from 21.2% in 1990 to 43.8% in 2022 for women and from 16.9% to 41.6% in 2022 for men.

As of 2022, the prevalence of obesity in the United States ranked 36th highest in the world for women and 10th highest in the world for men.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is very concerning that the epidemic of obesity that was evident among adults in much of the world in 1990 is now mirrored in school-aged children and adolescents,” senior author Majid Ezzati, PhD, of Imperial College of London, said in a press statement.

“At the same time, hundreds of millions are still affected by undernutrition, particularly in some of the poorest parts of the world,” he said. “To successfully tackle both forms of malnutrition, it is vital we significantly improve the availability and affordability of healthy, nutritious foods.”

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, WHO Director-General, added in the press statement that “this new study highlights the importance of preventing and managing obesity from early life to adulthood, through diet, physical activity, and adequate care, as needed.

“Getting back on track to meet the global targets for curbing obesity will take the work of governments and communities, supported by evidence-based policies from WHO and national public health agencies,” he said.

“Importantly, it requires the cooperation of the private sector, which must be accountable for the health impacts of their products.”

SOURCE:

The study was published on February 29, 2024, in The Lancet. The study was conducted by the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration and the WHO.

LIMITATIONS:

Data differences in countries included that some had limited data and three had none, requiring some estimates to be formed using data from other countries. Data availability was also lower among the youngest and oldest patients, increasing uncertainty of data in those age groups. In addition, data from health surveys can be subject to error, and BMI can be an imperfect measure of the extent or distribution of body fat.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and the European Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than a billion children, adolescents, and adults are living with obesity, globally, with rates of obesity among children and adolescents quadrupling between 1990 and 2022.

Obesity rates nearly tripled among adult men and more than doubled among women during the time period, according to results from a collaboration between the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration and the World Health Organization (WHO).

The rates of being underweight have meanwhile declined, making obesity now the most common form of malnutrition in most regions.

METHODOLOGY:

In this global analysis, the authors evaluated 3663 population-based studies conducted in 200 countries and territories, with data on 222 million participants in the general population, including height and weight.

Trends were established according to categories of body mass index (BMI) in groups of adults aged 20 years or older, representing 150 million individuals, and 63 million school-aged children and adolescents aged 5-19 years, spanning from 1990 to 2022.

Assessments of adults focus on the individual and combined prevalence of underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m²) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²).

For school-aged children and adolescents, assessments were for thinness (BMI < 2 standard deviation [SD] below the median of the WHO growth reference) and obesity (BMI > 2 SD above the median).

TAKEAWAY:

The combined prevalence of obesity as well as underweight increased over the study period in most countries for women (162 countries, 81%) and men (140 countries, 70%), with increases driven by increases in obesity in nearly all countries, while underweight or thinness rates decreased.

In 2022, obesity rates were higher than underweight in 177 countries (89%) for women and 145 countries (73%) for men.

Likewise, among school-aged children and adolescents, obesity in 2022 was more prevalent than thinness among girls in 130 countries (67%) and boys in 125 countries (63%), while thinness was more prevalent in only 18% and 21% of the countries, respectively.

In 2022, the combined prevalence of underweight and obesity was highest in island nations in the Caribbean and Polynesia and Micronesia, as well as in countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Among school-aged children, the countries with the highest combined prevalence of underweight and obesity were Polynesia and Micronesia and the Caribbean for both sexes and Chile and Qatar for boys.

The prevalence of obesity surpassed 60% among women in eight countries (4%) and men in six countries (3%), all in Polynesia and Micronesia.

In the United States, the obesity rate increased from 21.2% in 1990 to 43.8% in 2022 for women and from 16.9% to 41.6% in 2022 for men.

As of 2022, the prevalence of obesity in the United States ranked 36th highest in the world for women and 10th highest in the world for men.

IN PRACTICE:

“It is very concerning that the epidemic of obesity that was evident among adults in much of the world in 1990 is now mirrored in school-aged children and adolescents,” senior author Majid Ezzati, PhD, of Imperial College of London, said in a press statement.

“At the same time, hundreds of millions are still affected by undernutrition, particularly in some of the poorest parts of the world,” he said. “To successfully tackle both forms of malnutrition, it is vital we significantly improve the availability and affordability of healthy, nutritious foods.”

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, WHO Director-General, added in the press statement that “this new study highlights the importance of preventing and managing obesity from early life to adulthood, through diet, physical activity, and adequate care, as needed.

“Getting back on track to meet the global targets for curbing obesity will take the work of governments and communities, supported by evidence-based policies from WHO and national public health agencies,” he said.

“Importantly, it requires the cooperation of the private sector, which must be accountable for the health impacts of their products.”

SOURCE:

The study was published on February 29, 2024, in The Lancet. The study was conducted by the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration and the WHO.

LIMITATIONS:

Data differences in countries included that some had limited data and three had none, requiring some estimates to be formed using data from other countries. Data availability was also lower among the youngest and oldest patients, increasing uncertainty of data in those age groups. In addition, data from health surveys can be subject to error, and BMI can be an imperfect measure of the extent or distribution of body fat.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by UK Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, and the European Commission.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with diabetes who live in small towns in the United States experience higher rates of complications than those living in cities and remote areas.

METHODOLOGY:

Retrospective cohort study using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse used a deidentified data set of US commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries including 2,901,563 adults with diabetes between 2012 and 2021.

Overall, 2.6% lived in remote areas (population < 2500), 14.1% in small towns (2500-50,000), and 83.3% in cities (> 50,000).

Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, sex, health plan type, index year, diabetes type, baseline comorbidities, and medication use.

TAKEAWAY:

Relative to people living in cities, people in remote areas had significantly greater risks for myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.06) and revascularization (1.04) but lower risks for hypoglycemia (0.90) and stroke (0.91).

Compared with cities, people living in small towns had significantly more hyperglycemia (1.06), hypoglycemia (1.15), end-stage kidney disease (1.04), myocardial infarction (1.10), heart failure (1.05), amputation (1.05), other lower-extremity complications (1.02), and revascularization (1.05), but a lower risk for stroke (0.95).

Compared with small towns, people living in remote areas had lower risks for hyperglycemia (0.85), hypoglycemia (0.92), and heart failure (0.94).

No geographic differences were found for retinopathy or atrial fibrillation/flutter.

The results didn’t differ significantly when the 2.5% overall with type 1 diabetes were removed from the dataset.

IN PRACTICE:

“While more research is needed to better understand the underlying causes of disparate diabetes outcomes along the rural-urban continuum, this study establishes the foundational differences to guide improvement efforts and helps to identify complications with the greatest disparities to which policy interventions may be targeted.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Kyle Steiger, MD, Internal Medicine Residency, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, and published February 22 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Claims data were from a single national health insurance provider that administers multiple private and Medicare Advantage health plans with disproportionate representation of urban populations and without people who have Medicaid or traditional Medicare fee-for-service or who are without insurance (and would be expected to have higher complication rates). There were no data on race/ethnicity. Potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Steiger had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with diabetes who live in small towns in the United States experience higher rates of complications than those living in cities and remote areas.

METHODOLOGY:

Retrospective cohort study using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse used a deidentified data set of US commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries including 2,901,563 adults with diabetes between 2012 and 2021.

Overall, 2.6% lived in remote areas (population < 2500), 14.1% in small towns (2500-50,000), and 83.3% in cities (> 50,000).

Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, sex, health plan type, index year, diabetes type, baseline comorbidities, and medication use.

TAKEAWAY:

Relative to people living in cities, people in remote areas had significantly greater risks for myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.06) and revascularization (1.04) but lower risks for hypoglycemia (0.90) and stroke (0.91).

Compared with cities, people living in small towns had significantly more hyperglycemia (1.06), hypoglycemia (1.15), end-stage kidney disease (1.04), myocardial infarction (1.10), heart failure (1.05), amputation (1.05), other lower-extremity complications (1.02), and revascularization (1.05), but a lower risk for stroke (0.95).

Compared with small towns, people living in remote areas had lower risks for hyperglycemia (0.85), hypoglycemia (0.92), and heart failure (0.94).

No geographic differences were found for retinopathy or atrial fibrillation/flutter.

The results didn’t differ significantly when the 2.5% overall with type 1 diabetes were removed from the dataset.

IN PRACTICE:

“While more research is needed to better understand the underlying causes of disparate diabetes outcomes along the rural-urban continuum, this study establishes the foundational differences to guide improvement efforts and helps to identify complications with the greatest disparities to which policy interventions may be targeted.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Kyle Steiger, MD, Internal Medicine Residency, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, and published February 22 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Claims data were from a single national health insurance provider that administers multiple private and Medicare Advantage health plans with disproportionate representation of urban populations and without people who have Medicaid or traditional Medicare fee-for-service or who are without insurance (and would be expected to have higher complication rates). There were no data on race/ethnicity. Potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Steiger had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with diabetes who live in small towns in the United States experience higher rates of complications than those living in cities and remote areas.

METHODOLOGY:

Retrospective cohort study using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse used a deidentified data set of US commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries including 2,901,563 adults with diabetes between 2012 and 2021.

Overall, 2.6% lived in remote areas (population < 2500), 14.1% in small towns (2500-50,000), and 83.3% in cities (> 50,000).

Multivariable analysis adjusted for age, sex, health plan type, index year, diabetes type, baseline comorbidities, and medication use.

TAKEAWAY:

Relative to people living in cities, people in remote areas had significantly greater risks for myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.06) and revascularization (1.04) but lower risks for hypoglycemia (0.90) and stroke (0.91).

Compared with cities, people living in small towns had significantly more hyperglycemia (1.06), hypoglycemia (1.15), end-stage kidney disease (1.04), myocardial infarction (1.10), heart failure (1.05), amputation (1.05), other lower-extremity complications (1.02), and revascularization (1.05), but a lower risk for stroke (0.95).

Compared with small towns, people living in remote areas had lower risks for hyperglycemia (0.85), hypoglycemia (0.92), and heart failure (0.94).

No geographic differences were found for retinopathy or atrial fibrillation/flutter.

The results didn’t differ significantly when the 2.5% overall with type 1 diabetes were removed from the dataset.

IN PRACTICE:

“While more research is needed to better understand the underlying causes of disparate diabetes outcomes along the rural-urban continuum, this study establishes the foundational differences to guide improvement efforts and helps to identify complications with the greatest disparities to which policy interventions may be targeted.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Kyle Steiger, MD, Internal Medicine Residency, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues, and published February 22 in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

Claims data were from a single national health insurance provider that administers multiple private and Medicare Advantage health plans with disproportionate representation of urban populations and without people who have Medicaid or traditional Medicare fee-for-service or who are without insurance (and would be expected to have higher complication rates). There were no data on race/ethnicity. Potential for residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Steiger had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant quantity of dysfunctional monocytes appears to indicate poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new publication. Nicolas Venteclef, PhD, director of an Inserm institute for diabetes research at Necker Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, France, led the research.

Quantifying Inflammation

Patients with type 2 diabetes have about twice the risk for a cardiovascular event associated with atherosclerosis, such as a heart attack or stroke, during their lifetimes. “Predicting these complications in diabetic patients is usually very difficult,” Dr. Venteclef told this news organization.

“They are strongly associated with inflammation in these patients. Therefore, we sought to quantify this inflammation in the blood.” To do this, his team focused on monocytes, a category of white blood cells circulating in the blood. They measured the blood concentration of monocytes and the subtypes present in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The results were published in Circulation Research.
 

Dysfunctional Monocytes

The team worked with three cohorts of patients. The first, named AngioSafe-2, consisting of 672 patients with type 2 diabetes, was recruited from the diabetology departments of Lariboisière and Bichat Claude Bernard hospitals in France. This cohort allowed researchers to demonstrate that the higher the number of circulating monocytes, the greater the risk for cardiovascular events, independent of age and duration of diabetes. This observation was confirmed through a second cohort, GLUTADIAB, that comprised 279 patients with type 2 diabetes. Scientists complemented their work with molecular analysis of circulating monocytes in these two cohorts, which revealed certain predominant monocyte subtypes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. “These monocytes are dysfunctional because they have a mitochondrial problem,” Dr. Venteclef explained.

To better understand how these results could be used to predict cardiovascular risk, the team collaborated with colleagues from the University Hospital of Nantes on a cohort called SURDIAGENE, which included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes. “We conducted a longitudinal study by following these patients for 10 years and quantifying cardiovascular events and deaths,” said Dr. Venteclef. Circulating monocyte levels were correlated with the occurrence of heart attacks or strokes. The researchers observed that patients with type 2 diabetes with a monocyte count above a certain threshold (0.5 × 109/L) had a five- to seven-times higher risk for cardiovascular events over 10 years than those with a monocyte count below this threshold.

A patent was filed at the end of 2023 to protect this discovery. “Our next step is to develop a sensor to quantify monocytes more easily and avoid blood draws,” said Dr. Venteclef. “As part of a European project, we will also launch a trial with an anti-inflammatory drug in diabetics, with the hope of interrupting the inflammatory trajectory and preventing complications.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant quantity of dysfunctional monocytes appears to indicate poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new publication. Nicolas Venteclef, PhD, director of an Inserm institute for diabetes research at Necker Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, France, led the research.

Quantifying Inflammation

Patients with type 2 diabetes have about twice the risk for a cardiovascular event associated with atherosclerosis, such as a heart attack or stroke, during their lifetimes. “Predicting these complications in diabetic patients is usually very difficult,” Dr. Venteclef told this news organization.

“They are strongly associated with inflammation in these patients. Therefore, we sought to quantify this inflammation in the blood.” To do this, his team focused on monocytes, a category of white blood cells circulating in the blood. They measured the blood concentration of monocytes and the subtypes present in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The results were published in Circulation Research.
 

Dysfunctional Monocytes

The team worked with three cohorts of patients. The first, named AngioSafe-2, consisting of 672 patients with type 2 diabetes, was recruited from the diabetology departments of Lariboisière and Bichat Claude Bernard hospitals in France. This cohort allowed researchers to demonstrate that the higher the number of circulating monocytes, the greater the risk for cardiovascular events, independent of age and duration of diabetes. This observation was confirmed through a second cohort, GLUTADIAB, that comprised 279 patients with type 2 diabetes. Scientists complemented their work with molecular analysis of circulating monocytes in these two cohorts, which revealed certain predominant monocyte subtypes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. “These monocytes are dysfunctional because they have a mitochondrial problem,” Dr. Venteclef explained.

To better understand how these results could be used to predict cardiovascular risk, the team collaborated with colleagues from the University Hospital of Nantes on a cohort called SURDIAGENE, which included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes. “We conducted a longitudinal study by following these patients for 10 years and quantifying cardiovascular events and deaths,” said Dr. Venteclef. Circulating monocyte levels were correlated with the occurrence of heart attacks or strokes. The researchers observed that patients with type 2 diabetes with a monocyte count above a certain threshold (0.5 × 109/L) had a five- to seven-times higher risk for cardiovascular events over 10 years than those with a monocyte count below this threshold.

A patent was filed at the end of 2023 to protect this discovery. “Our next step is to develop a sensor to quantify monocytes more easily and avoid blood draws,” said Dr. Venteclef. “As part of a European project, we will also launch a trial with an anti-inflammatory drug in diabetics, with the hope of interrupting the inflammatory trajectory and preventing complications.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant quantity of dysfunctional monocytes appears to indicate poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new publication. Nicolas Venteclef, PhD, director of an Inserm institute for diabetes research at Necker Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, France, led the research.

Quantifying Inflammation

Patients with type 2 diabetes have about twice the risk for a cardiovascular event associated with atherosclerosis, such as a heart attack or stroke, during their lifetimes. “Predicting these complications in diabetic patients is usually very difficult,” Dr. Venteclef told this news organization.

“They are strongly associated with inflammation in these patients. Therefore, we sought to quantify this inflammation in the blood.” To do this, his team focused on monocytes, a category of white blood cells circulating in the blood. They measured the blood concentration of monocytes and the subtypes present in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The results were published in Circulation Research.
 

Dysfunctional Monocytes

The team worked with three cohorts of patients. The first, named AngioSafe-2, consisting of 672 patients with type 2 diabetes, was recruited from the diabetology departments of Lariboisière and Bichat Claude Bernard hospitals in France. This cohort allowed researchers to demonstrate that the higher the number of circulating monocytes, the greater the risk for cardiovascular events, independent of age and duration of diabetes. This observation was confirmed through a second cohort, GLUTADIAB, that comprised 279 patients with type 2 diabetes. Scientists complemented their work with molecular analysis of circulating monocytes in these two cohorts, which revealed certain predominant monocyte subtypes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. “These monocytes are dysfunctional because they have a mitochondrial problem,” Dr. Venteclef explained.

To better understand how these results could be used to predict cardiovascular risk, the team collaborated with colleagues from the University Hospital of Nantes on a cohort called SURDIAGENE, which included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes. “We conducted a longitudinal study by following these patients for 10 years and quantifying cardiovascular events and deaths,” said Dr. Venteclef. Circulating monocyte levels were correlated with the occurrence of heart attacks or strokes. The researchers observed that patients with type 2 diabetes with a monocyte count above a certain threshold (0.5 × 109/L) had a five- to seven-times higher risk for cardiovascular events over 10 years than those with a monocyte count below this threshold.

A patent was filed at the end of 2023 to protect this discovery. “Our next step is to develop a sensor to quantify monocytes more easily and avoid blood draws,” said Dr. Venteclef. “As part of a European project, we will also launch a trial with an anti-inflammatory drug in diabetics, with the hope of interrupting the inflammatory trajectory and preventing complications.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern was associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) among middle-aged US adults. Greater intake of healthful plant foods, rather than lower intake of non-red meat animal foods, was the main factor underlying the inverse associations.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was 11,965 adults aged 45-64 years from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who didn›t have diabetes at baseline and who completed food-frequency questionnaires.
• Plant-based diet adherence was classified overall with the plant-based diet index (PDI) and also with higher healthful PDI (hPDI) and higher unhealthful PDI (uPDI) indexes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean daily total plant and animal food intakes for the highest quintile (5) were 15.1 and 3.4 servings per day, respectively, whereas average consumption for the lowest quintile (1) was 9.9 and 5.8 servings per day, respectively.
• During a median 22 years’ follow-up, 35% (n = 4208) of the participants developed T2D.
• After controlling for age, sex, race center, energy intake, education, income, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, and margarine intake, those in PDI quintile 5 had a significantly lower risk of developing T2D than in quintile 1 (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .01).
• As a continuous score, each 10-point higher PDI score was associated with a significant 6% lower risk for T2D (P = .01).
• Higher hPDI scores were also inversely associated with T2D risk (hazard ratio, 0.85 for quintiles 5 vs 1; P < .001), and (0.90 per each 10 units higher; P < .001).
• Higher uPDI scores were not significantly associated with diabetes risk, regardless of adjustments (P > .05).
• Associations between plant-based diet scores and diabetes did not differ by sex, age, race, or body mass index (BMI) after accounting for multiple comparisons (all P interaction > .05).
• Further adjustment for BMI attenuated the associations between overall and healthy plant-based diets and diabetes risk, suggesting that lower adiposity may partly explain the favorable association.

IN PRACTICE:

“Emphasizing plant foods may be an effective dietary strategy to delay or prevent the onset of diabetes.”

SOURCE:

The study conducted by Valerie K. Sullivan, PhD, RD, of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations were self-reported dietary intake, diets assessed decades ago, possible food misclassification, possible selection bias, and residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern was associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) among middle-aged US adults. Greater intake of healthful plant foods, rather than lower intake of non-red meat animal foods, was the main factor underlying the inverse associations.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was 11,965 adults aged 45-64 years from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who didn›t have diabetes at baseline and who completed food-frequency questionnaires.
• Plant-based diet adherence was classified overall with the plant-based diet index (PDI) and also with higher healthful PDI (hPDI) and higher unhealthful PDI (uPDI) indexes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean daily total plant and animal food intakes for the highest quintile (5) were 15.1 and 3.4 servings per day, respectively, whereas average consumption for the lowest quintile (1) was 9.9 and 5.8 servings per day, respectively.
• During a median 22 years’ follow-up, 35% (n = 4208) of the participants developed T2D.
• After controlling for age, sex, race center, energy intake, education, income, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, and margarine intake, those in PDI quintile 5 had a significantly lower risk of developing T2D than in quintile 1 (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .01).
• As a continuous score, each 10-point higher PDI score was associated with a significant 6% lower risk for T2D (P = .01).
• Higher hPDI scores were also inversely associated with T2D risk (hazard ratio, 0.85 for quintiles 5 vs 1; P < .001), and (0.90 per each 10 units higher; P < .001).
• Higher uPDI scores were not significantly associated with diabetes risk, regardless of adjustments (P > .05).
• Associations between plant-based diet scores and diabetes did not differ by sex, age, race, or body mass index (BMI) after accounting for multiple comparisons (all P interaction > .05).
• Further adjustment for BMI attenuated the associations between overall and healthy plant-based diets and diabetes risk, suggesting that lower adiposity may partly explain the favorable association.

IN PRACTICE:

“Emphasizing plant foods may be an effective dietary strategy to delay or prevent the onset of diabetes.”

SOURCE:

The study conducted by Valerie K. Sullivan, PhD, RD, of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations were self-reported dietary intake, diets assessed decades ago, possible food misclassification, possible selection bias, and residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Greater adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern was associated with a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) among middle-aged US adults. Greater intake of healthful plant foods, rather than lower intake of non-red meat animal foods, was the main factor underlying the inverse associations.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study population was 11,965 adults aged 45-64 years from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study who didn›t have diabetes at baseline and who completed food-frequency questionnaires.
• Plant-based diet adherence was classified overall with the plant-based diet index (PDI) and also with higher healthful PDI (hPDI) and higher unhealthful PDI (uPDI) indexes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Mean daily total plant and animal food intakes for the highest quintile (5) were 15.1 and 3.4 servings per day, respectively, whereas average consumption for the lowest quintile (1) was 9.9 and 5.8 servings per day, respectively.
• During a median 22 years’ follow-up, 35% (n = 4208) of the participants developed T2D.
• After controlling for age, sex, race center, energy intake, education, income, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, and margarine intake, those in PDI quintile 5 had a significantly lower risk of developing T2D than in quintile 1 (hazard ratio, 0.89; P = .01).
• As a continuous score, each 10-point higher PDI score was associated with a significant 6% lower risk for T2D (P = .01).
• Higher hPDI scores were also inversely associated with T2D risk (hazard ratio, 0.85 for quintiles 5 vs 1; P < .001), and (0.90 per each 10 units higher; P < .001).
• Higher uPDI scores were not significantly associated with diabetes risk, regardless of adjustments (P > .05).
• Associations between plant-based diet scores and diabetes did not differ by sex, age, race, or body mass index (BMI) after accounting for multiple comparisons (all P interaction > .05).
• Further adjustment for BMI attenuated the associations between overall and healthy plant-based diets and diabetes risk, suggesting that lower adiposity may partly explain the favorable association.

IN PRACTICE:

“Emphasizing plant foods may be an effective dietary strategy to delay or prevent the onset of diabetes.”

SOURCE:

The study conducted by Valerie K. Sullivan, PhD, RD, of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations were self-reported dietary intake, diets assessed decades ago, possible food misclassification, possible selection bias, and residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The ARIC study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors had no further disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

People with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2) inhibitors show a significantly reduced risk of developing kidney stones compared with those treated with other commonly used diabetes drugs.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first and largest to assess the association between SGLT2 inhibitors use and risk of nephrolithiasis [kidney stones] in patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice,” said the authors of the study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that for patients with type 2 diabetes, the individual risk profile for developing nephrolithiasis could be a consideration when deciding which glucose-lowering agent patients should initiate,” they wrote.

The prevalence of kidney stones has been on the rise, and the problem is especially relevant to those with type 2 diabetes, which is known to have an increased risk of kidney stones, potentially causing severe pain and leading to kidney function decline.

With SGLT2 inhibitors showing renoprotective, in addition to cardiovascular benefits, first author Julie Paik, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics and the Division of Renal (Kidney) Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues conducted an active comparator cohort study using data from three nationwide databases on patients with type 2 diabetes in routine clinical practice.

In the study’s two arms of propensity score-matched patients, 358,203 pairs of patients with type 2 diabetes were matched 1:1 to either those who were new users of SGLT2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), with patients in those groups having a mean age of 61 and being about 51% female.

In addition, 331,028 pairs matched new SGLT2 inhibitor users 1:1 with didpeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor users, who also had a mean age of about 61.5 years and were about 47% female.

Over a median follow-up of 192 days, those treated with SGLT2 inhibitors had about a 31% significantly lower risk of kidney stones than GLP-1RA users (14.9 vs 21.3 events per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69).

And the SGLT2 group also had a 26% lower kidney stone risk vs DPP4 inhibitor users (14.6 vs 19.9 events per 1000 person-years; HR, 0.74).

There were no differences in the results with either groups of pairs based on sex, race, ethnicity, a history of chronic kidney disease, or obesity.

Of note, the magnitude of the risk reduction observed with SGLT2 inhibitors was greater in adults aged < 70 years than in those aged ≥ 70 years (HR, 0.85; P for interaction < .001).

The age-related difference could possibly be due to changes in stone composition that occurs with aging, which may influence SGLT2 inhibitor response, Dr Paik told this news organization.

“However, we did not have information on stone composition in our study.”

In the study, patients were taking, on average, more than two antidiabetic medications upon entrance to the study, with 13% taking thiazides and 12% taking loop diuretics. In addition, approximately half of patients discontinued SGLT2 inhibitors (52.6%) and DPP4 inhibitors (53.2%).

However, the results remained consistent after adjusting for those factors, Dr. Paik noted.
 

Mechanisms: Urinary Citrate Excretion?

Among key possible explanations for the lower risk of kidney stones with SGLT2 inhibitors is that the drugs have increased urinary citrate excretion, with one study showing a nearly 50% increase in urinary citrate excretion among patients treated with empagliflozin vs placebo over 4 weeks and other studies also showing similar increases.

“This increased urinary citrate excretion may play a pivotal role in decreasing stone risk by inhibiting supersaturation and crystallization of calcium crystals,” the authors explained.

In addition, the urinary citrate excretion could further play a role by “forming complexes with calcium and thus lowering urinary calcium concentration, and raising urinary pH, thereby reducing the risk of uric acid stones,” they added.

SGLT inhibitors’ anti-inflammatory effects could also reduce stone formation by “suppressing the expression of a stone core matrix protein, osteopontin, and markers of kidney injury, inflammation, and macrophages that promote stone formation,” the authors noted.

Ultimately, however, “while we found a lower risk of kidney stones in our study, we don’t fully understand how they lower the risk,” Dr. Paik said. The potential explanations “remain to be studied further.”

Either way, “the risk of kidney stones in a patient might be one additional consideration for a clinician to take into account when choosing among the different glucose-lowering agents for patients with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Paik said.

The study was funded by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the National Institute of Aging the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

Once-weekly insulin icodec shows a higher glycated A1c reduction than once-daily basal insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), without major safety concerns.

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of five phase 3 ONWARDS randomized controlled trials included 3764 patients with T2D.
• The trials compared the effects of the weekly insulin icodec with those of the daily basal insulin analogs glargine and degludec over 26-78 months.
• The primary outcome was the change in A1c levels.
• Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose levels, A1c levels < 7%, time in target glycemic range, body weight changes, insulin dose, hypoglycemia events, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels < 7% were observed in a higher percentage of patients in the insulin icodec group than in the comparator group (odds ratio, 1.51; P = .004).
• In subgroup analyses, insulin icodec was superior to insulin degludec by several measures but comparatively similar to glargine.
• Insulin icodec was associated with no major safety concerns and had a slightly higher incidence of levels 1, 2, and combined 2/3 than degludec but no significant differences compared with glargine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained glycemic control with once-weekly injections of insulin icodec would lead to better patient acceptance and treatment satisfaction,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, authored by Sahana Shetty, MD, and Renuka Suvarna, MSc, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Department of Endocrinology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, was published online on January 8, 2024, in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The comparator group included individuals who used different basal insulin analogs. This heterogeneity in the comparator group introduced a potential source of variability, making it challenging to isolate the specific effects of insulin icodec compared with a standardized comparator. Blinding or masking of participants was performed in only one of the five trials.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. All five clinical trials in the meta-analysis were sponsored by Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Once-weekly insulin icodec shows a higher glycated A1c reduction than once-daily basal insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), without major safety concerns.

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of five phase 3 ONWARDS randomized controlled trials included 3764 patients with T2D.
• The trials compared the effects of the weekly insulin icodec with those of the daily basal insulin analogs glargine and degludec over 26-78 months.
• The primary outcome was the change in A1c levels.
• Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose levels, A1c levels < 7%, time in target glycemic range, body weight changes, insulin dose, hypoglycemia events, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels < 7% were observed in a higher percentage of patients in the insulin icodec group than in the comparator group (odds ratio, 1.51; P = .004).
• In subgroup analyses, insulin icodec was superior to insulin degludec by several measures but comparatively similar to glargine.
• Insulin icodec was associated with no major safety concerns and had a slightly higher incidence of levels 1, 2, and combined 2/3 than degludec but no significant differences compared with glargine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained glycemic control with once-weekly injections of insulin icodec would lead to better patient acceptance and treatment satisfaction,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, authored by Sahana Shetty, MD, and Renuka Suvarna, MSc, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Department of Endocrinology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, was published online on January 8, 2024, in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The comparator group included individuals who used different basal insulin analogs. This heterogeneity in the comparator group introduced a potential source of variability, making it challenging to isolate the specific effects of insulin icodec compared with a standardized comparator. Blinding or masking of participants was performed in only one of the five trials.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. All five clinical trials in the meta-analysis were sponsored by Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Once-weekly insulin icodec shows a higher glycated A1c reduction than once-daily basal insulin analogs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), without major safety concerns.

METHODOLOGY:

• A meta-analysis of five phase 3 ONWARDS randomized controlled trials included 3764 patients with T2D.
• The trials compared the effects of the weekly insulin icodec with those of the daily basal insulin analogs glargine and degludec over 26-78 months.
• The primary outcome was the change in A1c levels.
• Secondary outcomes included fasting plasma glucose levels, A1c levels < 7%, time in target glycemic range, body weight changes, insulin dose, hypoglycemia events, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• A1c levels < 7% were observed in a higher percentage of patients in the insulin icodec group than in the comparator group (odds ratio, 1.51; P = .004).
• In subgroup analyses, insulin icodec was superior to insulin degludec by several measures but comparatively similar to glargine.
• Insulin icodec was associated with no major safety concerns and had a slightly higher incidence of levels 1, 2, and combined 2/3 than degludec but no significant differences compared with glargine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Sustained glycemic control with once-weekly injections of insulin icodec would lead to better patient acceptance and treatment satisfaction,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, authored by Sahana Shetty, MD, and Renuka Suvarna, MSc, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Department of Endocrinology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, was published online on January 8, 2024, in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The comparator group included individuals who used different basal insulin analogs. This heterogeneity in the comparator group introduced a potential source of variability, making it challenging to isolate the specific effects of insulin icodec compared with a standardized comparator. Blinding or masking of participants was performed in only one of the five trials.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. All five clinical trials in the meta-analysis were sponsored by Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — The lack of data on optimal timing of delivery for pregnancies complicated by diabetes remains a major challenge in obstetrics — one with considerable implications given the high and rising prevalence of pregestational and gestational diabetes, Katherine Laughon Grantz, MD, MS, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

“While 39-40 weeks might be ideal for low-risk pregnancies, the optimal timing for pregnancies with complications [like diabetes] is unknown,” said Dr. Grantz, a senior investigator in the NICHD’s epidemiology branch.

The percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increased from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2021, according to the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:16). Meanwhile, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity, which raises the risk of gestational and type 2 diabetes, was 29% in 2019; this represents an 11% increase from 2015 (NCHS Data Brief. 2020;392:1-8) and has occurred across all maternal ages, races, ethnic groups, and educational levels, she said.

“The reason clinicians deliver pregnancies with diabetes earlier is because there’s a decreased risk of macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and stillbirth. And these risks need to be balanced with the increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with earlier delivery,” said Dr. Grantz, who noted during her talk that delivery timing also appears to influence long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. “Yet despite [diabetes in pregnancy] being so common, there is complete uncertainty about when to deliver.”
 

ACOG Recommendations, Randomized Trials (New And Old)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a Committee Opinion on Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries, published in collaboration with the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, offers recommendations based on the type of diabetes and the level of control. For instance, the suggested delivery timing for well-controlled GDM is full term (39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation), while the recommendation for poorly controlled diabetes is individualized late preterm/early term management (Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e35-9).

In defining and evaluating control, she noted, “the clinical focus is on glucose, but there are likely other important parameters that are not taken into account ... which [could be] important when considering the timing of delivery.” Potentially important factors include estimated fetal weight, fetal growth velocity, lipids, and amino acids, she said.

ACOG’s recommendations are based mainly on retrospective data, Dr. Grantz said. Only two randomized controlled trials have investigated the timing of delivery in the context of diabetes, and both focused on cesarean section and were “generally underpowered to study neonatal outcomes,” she said.

The first RCT, published in 1993, enrolled 200 women with uncomplicated insulin-requiring diabetes (187 with GDM and 13 with pregestational diabetes) at 38 weeks of gestation, and compared active induction of labor within 5 days to expectant management. There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (the primary outcome), but rates of macrosomia and large for gestational age were higher in the expectant management group (27% vs. 15%, P = .05, and 23% vs. 10%, P = .02, respectively). Shoulder dystocia occurred in three deliveries, each of which was expectantly managed (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169[3]:611-5). Notably, the study included “only women with excellent glucose control,” Dr. Grantz said.

The second RCT, published in 2017 by a group in Italy, enrolled 425 patients with GDM (diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria) between week 38 and week 39 of gestation and similarly randomized them to induction of labor or expectant management. No difference in cesarean delivery was found (BJOG. 2017;124[4]:669-77). Induction of labor was associated with a higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, and there was a trend toward a decreased risk of macrosomia, but again, the study was underpowered to detect differences in most outcomes, she said. (The study also was stopped early because of an inability to recruit, she noted.)

Dr. Grantz is currently recruiting for a randomized trial aimed at determining the optimal time between 37 and 39 weeks to initiate delivery — the time when neonatal morbidity and perinatal mortality risk is the lowest – for uncontrolled GDM-complicated pregnancies. The trial is designed to recruit up to 3,450 pregnant women with uncontrolled GDM and randomize the timing of their delivery (NCT05515744).

Those who are eligible for the study but do not consent to participate in randomization for delivery will be asked about chart review only (an estimated additional 3,000). The SPAN TIME study will also assess newborn development and behavior outcomes, as well as anthropometric measures, as secondary outcomes. An exploratory analysis will look for clinical, nonclinical or biochemical factors that could be helpful in optimizing delivery timing.

What Retrospective Studies Reveal

Factors that may influence the timing of delivery include the duration of neonatal exposure to hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia (pregestational vs. gestational diabetes), the level of diabetes control, and comorbidities (e.g. maternal renal disease or chronic hypertension). However, research “investigating how these factors influence morbidity and the timing of delivery is limited,” said Dr. Grantz.

Overall, it has been difficult through retrospective studies, she said, to investigate neonatal morbidity in diabetic pregnancies and tease apart the relative effects of diabetes as a precursor for early delivery and prematurity itself. Among the studies suggesting an independent risk of diabetes is a retrospective study focusing on neonatal respiratory morbidity — “one of the most common adverse outcomes associated with diabetes.”

The study, an analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor study (an electronic medical record study of more than 220,000 singleton pregnancies), stratified morbidity by the probability of delivering at term (≥ 37 weeks). GDM and pregestational diabetes complicated 5.1% and 1.5% of the pregnancies, respectively, and were found to be associated with increased risks of neonatal respiratory morbidity compared to women without diabetes — regardless of the probability of delivering at term.

However, these associations were stronger with a higher probability of delivering at term, which suggests that the neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with diabetes is not fully explained by a greater propensity for prematurity (Am J Perinatol. 2017;34[11]:1160-8).

In addition, the rates of all neonatal respiratory morbidities and mortality were higher for pregestational diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, said Dr. Grantz, a senior author of the study. (Morbidities included neonatal intensive care unit admission, transient tachypnea of newborn, apnea, respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, and stillbirth.)

The pathophysiology of diabetes and neonatal respiratory morbidity is “not fully known,” she said. It is believed that fetal hyperinsulinemia may cause delayed pulmonary maturation and there is evidence from animal studies that insulin decreases the incorporation of glucose and fatty acids into phospholipid phosphatidylglycerol. Indirect effects stem from the physiologic immaturity of earlier delivery and a higher cesarean delivery rate in pregnancies complicated by diabetes, Dr. Grantz said.

Among other retrospective studies was a population-based study from Canada (2004-2014), published in 2020, of large numbers of women with all types of diabetes and a comparison group of over 2.5 million without diabetes. For maternal morbidity/mortality, there were no significant differences by gestational age between iatrogenic delivery and expectant management among any form of diabetes. But for neonatal morbidity and mortality, the study found differences.

In women with gestational diabetes, iatrogenic delivery was associated with increased risk of neonatal morbidity/mortality at 36 and 37 weeks’ gestation and with decreased risk at weeks 38-40. Increased risk with iatrogenic delivery was also found for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at weeks 36 and 37 (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99[3]:341-9).

Another retrospective study using California vital statistics (1997-2006) examined rates of stillbirth and infant death in women with GDM by gestational age at delivery (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206[4]:309.e1-e7). The 190,000-plus women with GDM had elevated risk of stillbirth at each gestational age compared to those without GDM, but “the [excess] risk for GDM was lowest at 38 weeks and again at 40 weeks,” Dr. Grantz said. The investigators concluded, she said, “that the risk of expectant management exceeded that of delivery at 38 weeks and beyond.”

Dr. Grantz reported no disclosures.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — The lack of data on optimal timing of delivery for pregnancies complicated by diabetes remains a major challenge in obstetrics — one with considerable implications given the high and rising prevalence of pregestational and gestational diabetes, Katherine Laughon Grantz, MD, MS, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

“While 39-40 weeks might be ideal for low-risk pregnancies, the optimal timing for pregnancies with complications [like diabetes] is unknown,” said Dr. Grantz, a senior investigator in the NICHD’s epidemiology branch.

The percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increased from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2021, according to the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:16). Meanwhile, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity, which raises the risk of gestational and type 2 diabetes, was 29% in 2019; this represents an 11% increase from 2015 (NCHS Data Brief. 2020;392:1-8) and has occurred across all maternal ages, races, ethnic groups, and educational levels, she said.

“The reason clinicians deliver pregnancies with diabetes earlier is because there’s a decreased risk of macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and stillbirth. And these risks need to be balanced with the increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with earlier delivery,” said Dr. Grantz, who noted during her talk that delivery timing also appears to influence long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. “Yet despite [diabetes in pregnancy] being so common, there is complete uncertainty about when to deliver.”
 

ACOG Recommendations, Randomized Trials (New And Old)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a Committee Opinion on Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries, published in collaboration with the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, offers recommendations based on the type of diabetes and the level of control. For instance, the suggested delivery timing for well-controlled GDM is full term (39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation), while the recommendation for poorly controlled diabetes is individualized late preterm/early term management (Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e35-9).

In defining and evaluating control, she noted, “the clinical focus is on glucose, but there are likely other important parameters that are not taken into account ... which [could be] important when considering the timing of delivery.” Potentially important factors include estimated fetal weight, fetal growth velocity, lipids, and amino acids, she said.

ACOG’s recommendations are based mainly on retrospective data, Dr. Grantz said. Only two randomized controlled trials have investigated the timing of delivery in the context of diabetes, and both focused on cesarean section and were “generally underpowered to study neonatal outcomes,” she said.

The first RCT, published in 1993, enrolled 200 women with uncomplicated insulin-requiring diabetes (187 with GDM and 13 with pregestational diabetes) at 38 weeks of gestation, and compared active induction of labor within 5 days to expectant management. There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (the primary outcome), but rates of macrosomia and large for gestational age were higher in the expectant management group (27% vs. 15%, P = .05, and 23% vs. 10%, P = .02, respectively). Shoulder dystocia occurred in three deliveries, each of which was expectantly managed (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169[3]:611-5). Notably, the study included “only women with excellent glucose control,” Dr. Grantz said.

The second RCT, published in 2017 by a group in Italy, enrolled 425 patients with GDM (diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria) between week 38 and week 39 of gestation and similarly randomized them to induction of labor or expectant management. No difference in cesarean delivery was found (BJOG. 2017;124[4]:669-77). Induction of labor was associated with a higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, and there was a trend toward a decreased risk of macrosomia, but again, the study was underpowered to detect differences in most outcomes, she said. (The study also was stopped early because of an inability to recruit, she noted.)

Dr. Grantz is currently recruiting for a randomized trial aimed at determining the optimal time between 37 and 39 weeks to initiate delivery — the time when neonatal morbidity and perinatal mortality risk is the lowest – for uncontrolled GDM-complicated pregnancies. The trial is designed to recruit up to 3,450 pregnant women with uncontrolled GDM and randomize the timing of their delivery (NCT05515744).

Those who are eligible for the study but do not consent to participate in randomization for delivery will be asked about chart review only (an estimated additional 3,000). The SPAN TIME study will also assess newborn development and behavior outcomes, as well as anthropometric measures, as secondary outcomes. An exploratory analysis will look for clinical, nonclinical or biochemical factors that could be helpful in optimizing delivery timing.

What Retrospective Studies Reveal

Factors that may influence the timing of delivery include the duration of neonatal exposure to hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia (pregestational vs. gestational diabetes), the level of diabetes control, and comorbidities (e.g. maternal renal disease or chronic hypertension). However, research “investigating how these factors influence morbidity and the timing of delivery is limited,” said Dr. Grantz.

Overall, it has been difficult through retrospective studies, she said, to investigate neonatal morbidity in diabetic pregnancies and tease apart the relative effects of diabetes as a precursor for early delivery and prematurity itself. Among the studies suggesting an independent risk of diabetes is a retrospective study focusing on neonatal respiratory morbidity — “one of the most common adverse outcomes associated with diabetes.”

The study, an analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor study (an electronic medical record study of more than 220,000 singleton pregnancies), stratified morbidity by the probability of delivering at term (≥ 37 weeks). GDM and pregestational diabetes complicated 5.1% and 1.5% of the pregnancies, respectively, and were found to be associated with increased risks of neonatal respiratory morbidity compared to women without diabetes — regardless of the probability of delivering at term.

However, these associations were stronger with a higher probability of delivering at term, which suggests that the neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with diabetes is not fully explained by a greater propensity for prematurity (Am J Perinatol. 2017;34[11]:1160-8).

In addition, the rates of all neonatal respiratory morbidities and mortality were higher for pregestational diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, said Dr. Grantz, a senior author of the study. (Morbidities included neonatal intensive care unit admission, transient tachypnea of newborn, apnea, respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, and stillbirth.)

The pathophysiology of diabetes and neonatal respiratory morbidity is “not fully known,” she said. It is believed that fetal hyperinsulinemia may cause delayed pulmonary maturation and there is evidence from animal studies that insulin decreases the incorporation of glucose and fatty acids into phospholipid phosphatidylglycerol. Indirect effects stem from the physiologic immaturity of earlier delivery and a higher cesarean delivery rate in pregnancies complicated by diabetes, Dr. Grantz said.

Among other retrospective studies was a population-based study from Canada (2004-2014), published in 2020, of large numbers of women with all types of diabetes and a comparison group of over 2.5 million without diabetes. For maternal morbidity/mortality, there were no significant differences by gestational age between iatrogenic delivery and expectant management among any form of diabetes. But for neonatal morbidity and mortality, the study found differences.

In women with gestational diabetes, iatrogenic delivery was associated with increased risk of neonatal morbidity/mortality at 36 and 37 weeks’ gestation and with decreased risk at weeks 38-40. Increased risk with iatrogenic delivery was also found for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at weeks 36 and 37 (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99[3]:341-9).

Another retrospective study using California vital statistics (1997-2006) examined rates of stillbirth and infant death in women with GDM by gestational age at delivery (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206[4]:309.e1-e7). The 190,000-plus women with GDM had elevated risk of stillbirth at each gestational age compared to those without GDM, but “the [excess] risk for GDM was lowest at 38 weeks and again at 40 weeks,” Dr. Grantz said. The investigators concluded, she said, “that the risk of expectant management exceeded that of delivery at 38 weeks and beyond.”

Dr. Grantz reported no disclosures.

FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — The lack of data on optimal timing of delivery for pregnancies complicated by diabetes remains a major challenge in obstetrics — one with considerable implications given the high and rising prevalence of pregestational and gestational diabetes, Katherine Laughon Grantz, MD, MS, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America.

“While 39-40 weeks might be ideal for low-risk pregnancies, the optimal timing for pregnancies with complications [like diabetes] is unknown,” said Dr. Grantz, a senior investigator in the NICHD’s epidemiology branch.

The percentage of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) increased from 6% in 2016 to 8% in 2021, according to the most recent data from the National Vital Statistics System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:16). Meanwhile, the prevalence of prepregnancy obesity, which raises the risk of gestational and type 2 diabetes, was 29% in 2019; this represents an 11% increase from 2015 (NCHS Data Brief. 2020;392:1-8) and has occurred across all maternal ages, races, ethnic groups, and educational levels, she said.

“The reason clinicians deliver pregnancies with diabetes earlier is because there’s a decreased risk of macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and stillbirth. And these risks need to be balanced with the increased risk of neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with earlier delivery,” said Dr. Grantz, who noted during her talk that delivery timing also appears to influence long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. “Yet despite [diabetes in pregnancy] being so common, there is complete uncertainty about when to deliver.”
 

ACOG Recommendations, Randomized Trials (New And Old)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a Committee Opinion on Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries, published in collaboration with the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, offers recommendations based on the type of diabetes and the level of control. For instance, the suggested delivery timing for well-controlled GDM is full term (39 0/7 to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation), while the recommendation for poorly controlled diabetes is individualized late preterm/early term management (Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138:e35-9).

In defining and evaluating control, she noted, “the clinical focus is on glucose, but there are likely other important parameters that are not taken into account ... which [could be] important when considering the timing of delivery.” Potentially important factors include estimated fetal weight, fetal growth velocity, lipids, and amino acids, she said.

ACOG’s recommendations are based mainly on retrospective data, Dr. Grantz said. Only two randomized controlled trials have investigated the timing of delivery in the context of diabetes, and both focused on cesarean section and were “generally underpowered to study neonatal outcomes,” she said.

The first RCT, published in 1993, enrolled 200 women with uncomplicated insulin-requiring diabetes (187 with GDM and 13 with pregestational diabetes) at 38 weeks of gestation, and compared active induction of labor within 5 days to expectant management. There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rate (the primary outcome), but rates of macrosomia and large for gestational age were higher in the expectant management group (27% vs. 15%, P = .05, and 23% vs. 10%, P = .02, respectively). Shoulder dystocia occurred in three deliveries, each of which was expectantly managed (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169[3]:611-5). Notably, the study included “only women with excellent glucose control,” Dr. Grantz said.

The second RCT, published in 2017 by a group in Italy, enrolled 425 patients with GDM (diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria) between week 38 and week 39 of gestation and similarly randomized them to induction of labor or expectant management. No difference in cesarean delivery was found (BJOG. 2017;124[4]:669-77). Induction of labor was associated with a higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, and there was a trend toward a decreased risk of macrosomia, but again, the study was underpowered to detect differences in most outcomes, she said. (The study also was stopped early because of an inability to recruit, she noted.)

Dr. Grantz is currently recruiting for a randomized trial aimed at determining the optimal time between 37 and 39 weeks to initiate delivery — the time when neonatal morbidity and perinatal mortality risk is the lowest – for uncontrolled GDM-complicated pregnancies. The trial is designed to recruit up to 3,450 pregnant women with uncontrolled GDM and randomize the timing of their delivery (NCT05515744).

Those who are eligible for the study but do not consent to participate in randomization for delivery will be asked about chart review only (an estimated additional 3,000). The SPAN TIME study will also assess newborn development and behavior outcomes, as well as anthropometric measures, as secondary outcomes. An exploratory analysis will look for clinical, nonclinical or biochemical factors that could be helpful in optimizing delivery timing.

What Retrospective Studies Reveal

Factors that may influence the timing of delivery include the duration of neonatal exposure to hyperglycemia/hyperinsulinemia (pregestational vs. gestational diabetes), the level of diabetes control, and comorbidities (e.g. maternal renal disease or chronic hypertension). However, research “investigating how these factors influence morbidity and the timing of delivery is limited,” said Dr. Grantz.

Overall, it has been difficult through retrospective studies, she said, to investigate neonatal morbidity in diabetic pregnancies and tease apart the relative effects of diabetes as a precursor for early delivery and prematurity itself. Among the studies suggesting an independent risk of diabetes is a retrospective study focusing on neonatal respiratory morbidity — “one of the most common adverse outcomes associated with diabetes.”

The study, an analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor study (an electronic medical record study of more than 220,000 singleton pregnancies), stratified morbidity by the probability of delivering at term (≥ 37 weeks). GDM and pregestational diabetes complicated 5.1% and 1.5% of the pregnancies, respectively, and were found to be associated with increased risks of neonatal respiratory morbidity compared to women without diabetes — regardless of the probability of delivering at term.

However, these associations were stronger with a higher probability of delivering at term, which suggests that the neonatal respiratory morbidity associated with diabetes is not fully explained by a greater propensity for prematurity (Am J Perinatol. 2017;34[11]:1160-8).

In addition, the rates of all neonatal respiratory morbidities and mortality were higher for pregestational diabetes compared with gestational diabetes, said Dr. Grantz, a senior author of the study. (Morbidities included neonatal intensive care unit admission, transient tachypnea of newborn, apnea, respiratory distress syndrome, mechanical ventilation, and stillbirth.)

The pathophysiology of diabetes and neonatal respiratory morbidity is “not fully known,” she said. It is believed that fetal hyperinsulinemia may cause delayed pulmonary maturation and there is evidence from animal studies that insulin decreases the incorporation of glucose and fatty acids into phospholipid phosphatidylglycerol. Indirect effects stem from the physiologic immaturity of earlier delivery and a higher cesarean delivery rate in pregnancies complicated by diabetes, Dr. Grantz said.

Among other retrospective studies was a population-based study from Canada (2004-2014), published in 2020, of large numbers of women with all types of diabetes and a comparison group of over 2.5 million without diabetes. For maternal morbidity/mortality, there were no significant differences by gestational age between iatrogenic delivery and expectant management among any form of diabetes. But for neonatal morbidity and mortality, the study found differences.

In women with gestational diabetes, iatrogenic delivery was associated with increased risk of neonatal morbidity/mortality at 36 and 37 weeks’ gestation and with decreased risk at weeks 38-40. Increased risk with iatrogenic delivery was also found for women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes at weeks 36 and 37 (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99[3]:341-9).

Another retrospective study using California vital statistics (1997-2006) examined rates of stillbirth and infant death in women with GDM by gestational age at delivery (Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206[4]:309.e1-e7). The 190,000-plus women with GDM had elevated risk of stillbirth at each gestational age compared to those without GDM, but “the [excess] risk for GDM was lowest at 38 weeks and again at 40 weeks,” Dr. Grantz said. The investigators concluded, she said, “that the risk of expectant management exceeded that of delivery at 38 weeks and beyond.”

Dr. Grantz reported no disclosures.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.