Clinical Endocrinology News

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoporosis affects about 15% of people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but the disease pattern is different than in the general population, said gastroenterologist Millie Long, MD, from the Department of Medicine at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

In the general population, those who develop osteoporosis are typically women who are thin and postmenopausal, and family history, smoking status, and alcohol use usually play a role, Long said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

But in the population with IBD, the risk for osteoporosis is similar in women and men, age plays a large role, and corticosteroid use seems to be a driving factor in the development of the disease, she explained.

A previous study that looked at fractures in patients with IBD showed that the risk “is 40% greater than in the general population,” Long reported. In patients younger than 40 years, the risk for fracture was 37% higher than in the general population, and this rate increased with age.
 

Preventing fractures

Fractures to the hip and spine are linked to significant morbidity, including hospitalization, major surgery, and even death, Long noted. But they are one of the preventable downstream effects of IBD, and patients need to understand that there’s something they can do about their elevated risk.

Patients should be educated on the importance of weight-bearing exercise and quitting smoking, she said.

“We need to think of preventive measures for anyone on more than 5 mg of prednisone a day for a time period of about 3 months,” she added. “Unfortunately, most of our patients meet this criterion.”

Patients with IBD should undergo dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to calculate bone density and establish the need for calcium and vitamin D supplementation.

“One of the things I’m starting to do in my practice is check vitamin D levels annually on my patients. I do this in the springtime and try to optimize their levels,” Long said.
 

Higher risk for herpes zoster

The risk for infection is also elevated in patients with IBD, including the risk for herpes zoster, which is already high, affecting one in three people in the general population.

In fact, the risk for herpes zoster in patients with IBD in their 20s is similar to the risk for people in their 50s in the general population. This is “something we need to be addressing in all of our patients,” said Long.

Physicians should emphasize the need for zoster vaccination in patients at least 50 years of age, and potentially younger patients on certain therapies, she added.

But because the Shingrix shingles vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline) is so much more powerful than the previous live vaccine, some have wondered whether it could stimulate an immune response, causing the IBD to flare after vaccination, she said.

However, a recent study of IBD patients followed for 207 days after shingles vaccination showed that only one of the 67 study participants (1.5%) experienced a flare. But fever is fairly common after the shot.

“I counsel my patients that they may feel pretty wiped out for 24 hours; they may have myalgias,” Long reported. “If you have someone who has to travel for work, you want them to time this vaccination so they can have a day of rest afterward. It’s the real deal.”
 

Screening for TB

Screening to rule out latent tuberculosis (TB) is also important in IBD.

“We should be looking at whether they’ve had close contact with active TB or people from endemic areas,” said Long. “The reason we really care about this is that the risk of serious infection is doubled with anti-TNF therapy.”

The treatment of latent TB prior to the initiation of an anti-TNF “reduces the incidence of active TB by over 80%. This is why it’s imperative to screen prior to initiation, and then periodically based on risk factors,” she explained.

“It’s profound how much maintenance is required for patients with IBD,” said Christopher Stanke, MD, from the Oregon Medical Group in Eugene.

He said he is particularly struck by the collective risks for younger patients with IBD.

“Young people look to us as their only doctor. They don’t even see their primary care physicians very often. We have to take over a lot of this stuff,” he told Medscape Medical News.

And osteoporosis doesn’t often get the attention it needs in gastroenterologists’ offices, he acknowledged.

“I often check it on people as they get close to 50 or 60,” said Stanke, who added that Long’s presentation is a good reminder that younger patients, especially those who have been on steroids for a while, need more attention.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Just a month before results from the first of several new pivotal trials with a renal denervation device are to be presented, a Food and Drug Administration medical officer speaking at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute explained which data will most attract the scrutiny of regulators.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The FDA is very interested in these devices. We recognize that there is a clinical need, but a reasonable benefit-to-risk relationship has to be established,” said Meir Shinnar, MD, PhD, who works in the division of cardiac devices in the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation.

The field of renal denervation is expected to heat up again if the results of the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED pivotal trial, planned as a late-breaking presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March 2020, are positive. However, long-term safety will remain a concern, and positive results will not diminish the rigor with which the relative safety and efficacy of other devices in late stages of clinical testing are evaluated.

“The safety profile is unique to the device design and the procedural technique,” Dr. Shinnar said. For example, vascular injury from the energy employed for denervation, whether radiofrequency or another modality, is an important theoretical risk. A minor initial injury might have no immediate consequences but pose major risks if it leads to altered kidney function over time.

“Most of the follow-up data we have now [with renal denervation devices] is about 1-3 years, but I think long-term safety requires a minimum of 5 years of safety data,” Dr. Shinnar said. “We do not expect all that data to be available at the time of approval, but postmarketing studies will be needed.”

Almost 6 years after the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial failed to show a significant reduction in blood pressure among patients with resistant hypertension treated with renal denervation rather than a sham procedure (N Engl J Med 2014;370:1393-401), this treatment is again considered promising. The surprising SYMPLICITY HTN-3 result led to several revisions in technique based on the suspicion that denervation was inadequate.

However, the basic principles remain unchanged. For renal denervation, SPYRAL HTN OFF MED, like the SYMPLICITY HTN 3 study, is employing the Symplicity (Medtronic) device, which has been approved in 50 countries but not in the United States, Canada, or Japan.

SPYRAL HTN OFF MED is designed to provide a very straightforward test of efficacy. Unlike SYMPLICITY HTN-3, which permitted patients to remain on their antihypertensive medications, patients in SPYRAL HTN OFF MED will be tested in the absence of drug therapy (a trial with adjunctive antihypertensive drugs, SPYRAL HTN ON MED, is ongoing). This is a design feature that is relevant to regulatory evaluation.

Although not speaking about the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED trial specifically, Dr. Shinnar noted that “the bar is considered to be higher for a first-line indication than when a device is used as an adjunctive to drug therapy.”

Whether used with or without medications, devices are not likely to receive approval without showing a durable benefit. Dr. Shinnar, citing the surgical studies in which blood pressure control was lost 1-2 years after denervation, said 12 months is now considered a “preferred” length of follow-up to confirm efficacy.

If renal denervation moves forward as a result of the new wave of phase 3 trials, there will still be many unanswered questions, according to Dr. Shinnar, who noted that the FDA convened an advisory committee in December 2018 to gather expert opinion about meaningful safety as well as efficacy endpoints for this modality. One will be determining which populations, defined by age, gender, or phenotype, most benefit.

It also remains unclear whether the first approval will create a standard to which subsequent devices should be compared, according to Dr. Shinnar. Although the FDA recognizes blood pressure reductions as an acceptable endpoint, he believes that documentation of the impact on clinical events will be sought in postmarketing analyses.

“All of the denervation modalities involve class 3 devices that require significant data,” Dr. Shinnar cautioned.

Even if the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED trial is positive on the basis of efficacy, it does not guarantee regulatory approval. Dr. Shinnar described a multifaceted approach to defining an acceptable risk-to-benefit ratio from approved devices, and warned that several points regarding the evaluation of renal denervation devices by the FDA are still being debated internally.

Dr. Shinnar reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Just a month before results from the first of several new pivotal trials with a renal denervation device are to be presented, a Food and Drug Administration medical officer speaking at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute explained which data will most attract the scrutiny of regulators.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The FDA is very interested in these devices. We recognize that there is a clinical need, but a reasonable benefit-to-risk relationship has to be established,” said Meir Shinnar, MD, PhD, who works in the division of cardiac devices in the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation.

The field of renal denervation is expected to heat up again if the results of the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED pivotal trial, planned as a late-breaking presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March 2020, are positive. However, long-term safety will remain a concern, and positive results will not diminish the rigor with which the relative safety and efficacy of other devices in late stages of clinical testing are evaluated.

“The safety profile is unique to the device design and the procedural technique,” Dr. Shinnar said. For example, vascular injury from the energy employed for denervation, whether radiofrequency or another modality, is an important theoretical risk. A minor initial injury might have no immediate consequences but pose major risks if it leads to altered kidney function over time.

“Most of the follow-up data we have now [with renal denervation devices] is about 1-3 years, but I think long-term safety requires a minimum of 5 years of safety data,” Dr. Shinnar said. “We do not expect all that data to be available at the time of approval, but postmarketing studies will be needed.”

Almost 6 years after the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial failed to show a significant reduction in blood pressure among patients with resistant hypertension treated with renal denervation rather than a sham procedure (N Engl J Med 2014;370:1393-401), this treatment is again considered promising. The surprising SYMPLICITY HTN-3 result led to several revisions in technique based on the suspicion that denervation was inadequate.

However, the basic principles remain unchanged. For renal denervation, SPYRAL HTN OFF MED, like the SYMPLICITY HTN 3 study, is employing the Symplicity (Medtronic) device, which has been approved in 50 countries but not in the United States, Canada, or Japan.

SPYRAL HTN OFF MED is designed to provide a very straightforward test of efficacy. Unlike SYMPLICITY HTN-3, which permitted patients to remain on their antihypertensive medications, patients in SPYRAL HTN OFF MED will be tested in the absence of drug therapy (a trial with adjunctive antihypertensive drugs, SPYRAL HTN ON MED, is ongoing). This is a design feature that is relevant to regulatory evaluation.

Although not speaking about the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED trial specifically, Dr. Shinnar noted that “the bar is considered to be higher for a first-line indication than when a device is used as an adjunctive to drug therapy.”

Whether used with or without medications, devices are not likely to receive approval without showing a durable benefit. Dr. Shinnar, citing the surgical studies in which blood pressure control was lost 1-2 years after denervation, said 12 months is now considered a “preferred” length of follow-up to confirm efficacy.

If renal denervation moves forward as a result of the new wave of phase 3 trials, there will still be many unanswered questions, according to Dr. Shinnar, who noted that the FDA convened an advisory committee in December 2018 to gather expert opinion about meaningful safety as well as efficacy endpoints for this modality. One will be determining which populations, defined by age, gender, or phenotype, most benefit.

It also remains unclear whether the first approval will create a standard to which subsequent devices should be compared, according to Dr. Shinnar. Although the FDA recognizes blood pressure reductions as an acceptable endpoint, he believes that documentation of the impact on clinical events will be sought in postmarketing analyses.

“All of the denervation modalities involve class 3 devices that require significant data,” Dr. Shinnar cautioned.

Even if the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED trial is positive on the basis of efficacy, it does not guarantee regulatory approval. Dr. Shinnar described a multifaceted approach to defining an acceptable risk-to-benefit ratio from approved devices, and warned that several points regarding the evaluation of renal denervation devices by the FDA are still being debated internally.

Dr. Shinnar reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Just a month before results from the first of several new pivotal trials with a renal denervation device are to be presented, a Food and Drug Administration medical officer speaking at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute explained which data will most attract the scrutiny of regulators.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“The FDA is very interested in these devices. We recognize that there is a clinical need, but a reasonable benefit-to-risk relationship has to be established,” said Meir Shinnar, MD, PhD, who works in the division of cardiac devices in the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation.

The field of renal denervation is expected to heat up again if the results of the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED pivotal trial, planned as a late-breaking presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March 2020, are positive. However, long-term safety will remain a concern, and positive results will not diminish the rigor with which the relative safety and efficacy of other devices in late stages of clinical testing are evaluated.

“The safety profile is unique to the device design and the procedural technique,” Dr. Shinnar said. For example, vascular injury from the energy employed for denervation, whether radiofrequency or another modality, is an important theoretical risk. A minor initial injury might have no immediate consequences but pose major risks if it leads to altered kidney function over time.

“Most of the follow-up data we have now [with renal denervation devices] is about 1-3 years, but I think long-term safety requires a minimum of 5 years of safety data,” Dr. Shinnar said. “We do not expect all that data to be available at the time of approval, but postmarketing studies will be needed.”

Almost 6 years after the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial failed to show a significant reduction in blood pressure among patients with resistant hypertension treated with renal denervation rather than a sham procedure (N Engl J Med 2014;370:1393-401), this treatment is again considered promising. The surprising SYMPLICITY HTN-3 result led to several revisions in technique based on the suspicion that denervation was inadequate.

However, the basic principles remain unchanged. For renal denervation, SPYRAL HTN OFF MED, like the SYMPLICITY HTN 3 study, is employing the Symplicity (Medtronic) device, which has been approved in 50 countries but not in the United States, Canada, or Japan.

SPYRAL HTN OFF MED is designed to provide a very straightforward test of efficacy. Unlike SYMPLICITY HTN-3, which permitted patients to remain on their antihypertensive medications, patients in SPYRAL HTN OFF MED will be tested in the absence of drug therapy (a trial with adjunctive antihypertensive drugs, SPYRAL HTN ON MED, is ongoing). This is a design feature that is relevant to regulatory evaluation.

Although not speaking about the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED trial specifically, Dr. Shinnar noted that “the bar is considered to be higher for a first-line indication than when a device is used as an adjunctive to drug therapy.”

Whether used with or without medications, devices are not likely to receive approval without showing a durable benefit. Dr. Shinnar, citing the surgical studies in which blood pressure control was lost 1-2 years after denervation, said 12 months is now considered a “preferred” length of follow-up to confirm efficacy.

If renal denervation moves forward as a result of the new wave of phase 3 trials, there will still be many unanswered questions, according to Dr. Shinnar, who noted that the FDA convened an advisory committee in December 2018 to gather expert opinion about meaningful safety as well as efficacy endpoints for this modality. One will be determining which populations, defined by age, gender, or phenotype, most benefit.

It also remains unclear whether the first approval will create a standard to which subsequent devices should be compared, according to Dr. Shinnar. Although the FDA recognizes blood pressure reductions as an acceptable endpoint, he believes that documentation of the impact on clinical events will be sought in postmarketing analyses.

“All of the denervation modalities involve class 3 devices that require significant data,” Dr. Shinnar cautioned.

Even if the SPYRAL HTN OFF MED trial is positive on the basis of efficacy, it does not guarantee regulatory approval. Dr. Shinnar described a multifaceted approach to defining an acceptable risk-to-benefit ratio from approved devices, and warned that several points regarding the evaluation of renal denervation devices by the FDA are still being debated internally.

Dr. Shinnar reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.

They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.

“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.

Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.

And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.

The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.

Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.

And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.

Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.

Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.

But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling

Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”

Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.

Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.

This is an area for future research, he noted.

Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.

“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.

Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.

“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.

“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.

“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.

Proponents of laws speak of harms

Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.

Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.

One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.

The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”

Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.

“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
 

Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback

In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.

But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.

Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.

The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.

In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”

“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
 

Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some

The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”

Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.

Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”

Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”

But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.

In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.

“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.

“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
 

Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway

Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.

It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.

“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.

Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.

“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.

Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.

“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.

However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.

“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.

The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.

Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.

For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.

“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
 

State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids

Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.

“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.

“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.

“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.

With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.

“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.

“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.

Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.

“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.

“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.

Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.

They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.

“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.

Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.

And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.

The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.

Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.

And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.

Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.

Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.

But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling

Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”

Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.

Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.

This is an area for future research, he noted.

Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.

“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.

Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.

“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.

“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.

“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.

Proponents of laws speak of harms

Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.

Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.

One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.

The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”

Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.

“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
 

Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback

In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.

But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.

Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.

The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.

In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”

“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
 

Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some

The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”

Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.

Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”

Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”

But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.

In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.

“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.

“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
 

Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway

Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.

It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.

“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.

Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.

“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.

Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.

“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.

However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.

“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.

The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.

Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.

For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.

“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
 

State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids

Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.

“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.

“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.

“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.

With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.

“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.

“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.

Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.

“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.

“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.

Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Many US endocrinologists are crying foul as a growing number of state lawmakers are attempting to enact legislation that would prohibit, and in some cases criminalize, medical treatment for minors with gender dysphoria.

As of press time, 13 states had introduced such bills, and legislators in two additional states said they were drafting bills. So far, one — in South Dakota — was defeated in a Senate committee, and another, in Florida, was essentially tabled without being enacted.

They all have a common goal of preventing minors from receiving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or gender-affirmation surgery.

“These things are being proposed based on a lot of misinformation,” said Stephen Rosenthal, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a past president of the Pediatric Endocrine Society.

Lawmakers “are not looking at the scientific evidence that supports current clinical practice guidelines,” Rosenthal, who treats transgender children, told Medscape Medical News.

And “People just aren’t really understanding the harm that regulating this kind of medicine would do,” stressed Cassandra Brady, MD, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Memphis, Tennessee.

The bills come at a time when gender identity clinics for minors around the world have seen a significant uptick in cases. And, as widely reported by Medscape Medical News, some clinicians have begun to question whether treatment decisions are outpacing science.

Queries about use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones have embroiled the United Kingdom’s only publicly funded Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in controversy, for example, with five clinicians resigning last year over concerns about overuse of the treatments.

And earlier this month, the UK National Health Service (NHS) announced an independent review of services including the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth with gender dysphoria.

Meanwhile, the topic has ignited debate in Sweden, where a report from the Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls, as detailed by The Guardian.

Indeed, there is some indication of a so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in born females who say they wish to become males and some clinicians have said this represents a “social” phenomenon.

But guidelines from US clinical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics issued in 2018, the Endocrine Society as reported by Medscape Medical News in 2017, and the US Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH) – all support the use of medical treatment in adolescents with gender dysphoria who have received mental health evaluations from appropriately trained professionals.

More data needed but evidence to intervene is compelling

Joshua Safer, MD, FACP, FACE, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York City, says the data “even if it’s rudimentary, are convincing that there is a biological component to gender identity.”

Attempts to manipulate gender identity in people who are born intersex, for example, have uniformly failed, he noted.

Yet it’s still not known what causes gender identity – whether it might be a result of a cluster of genes or a bundle in the brain, or some other biological process – said Safer, who treats transgender adults, but not children, and is also a coauthor of the aforementioned Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Endocrine Treatment of Gender Dysphoric/Gender Incongruent Persons.

This is an area for future research, he noted.

Nevertheless, “The data for interventions for transgender people ... is compelling,” he added, noting evidence for improved mental health morbidity among those gender-questioning people who have medical interventions.

“Those data are modest at this point and we need better data, but they do all move in the same direction,” he asserted.

Meanwhile, a large group of around 1,800 parents of transgender and nonbinary children have called on legislators to withdraw the proposals in an open letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign.

“We know better than anyone what our children need in order to thrive: access to best practice, evidence-based gender-affirming healthcare,” the parents write.

“These healthcare decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, in careful consultation with a medical team, and with the goal of reducing the physical and emotional distress experienced by many transgender children,” they continue.

“They should not be made by politicians who think they know better than medical professionals,” they add.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has also condemned state efforts “to block access to these recognized interventions,” it said in a statement.

Proponents of laws speak of harms

Most of the state proposals portray medical interventions as harmful to minors.

Missouri’s proposed legislation labels surgical or hormonal treatment for a child under age 18 “abuse or neglect”; a physician or anyone who assists or provides for the child would be charged with a felony.

One of the first bills was introduced in South Dakota in January. House bill 1057 would have charged clinicians providing gender-affirming care in anyone under age 16 with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The bill was defeated in the Senate after the South Dakota State Medical Association and several other physicians, families, and adolescents testified against the proposal, according to the Argus Leader.

The Endocrine Society applauded the failure and noted in a statement that it “supports physicians’ ability to provide the best evidence-based treatment to their patients,” and that “these decisions should be made by the family and physician, and not dictated by policymakers.”

Jack Turban, MD, a resident physician in child and adolescent psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who conducted a pivotal study of some 26,000 transgender adults showing that early administration of puberty blockers led to lower odds of lifetime suicidal ideation, also expressed dismay over the bills in an opinion piece for the New York Times.

“The potential benefits of providing gender-affirmative care typically outweigh the minor risks associated with treatment,” wrote Turban.

“State legislators need to educate themselves about these young people and their medical care before introducing legislation that will hurt them,” he added.
 

Few states seem to have approached clinicians for feedback

In Tennessee, lawmakers have approached some clinicians at Vanderbilt and have appreciated the feedback they’ve received so far, said Brady.

But that may be an exception. It seems that few medical organizations have been consulted in the crafting of bills in the other states: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. Lawmakers in Ohio and Utah also are drafting proposals.

Physicians could be charged with a felony in Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, and reportedly, in the Ohio proposal under development.

The bills have been introduced at the behest of some conservative groups that doubt the existence of gender dysphoria or who have questions about treatment: the Eagle Forum, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Kelsey Coalition.

In a recent tweet clarifying its position on state efforts, the Kelsey Coalition said it “supports all bills that protect children, even those that may provide criminal penalties, because we believe these medical interventions should never be performed on children.”

“However, we do not support state bills that are not victim-led or used for political gain,” they added.
 

Existing knowledge imperfect but treatment indicated for some

The bills have also garnered support from some endocrinologists who have raised concerns about puberty blockers and other medical treatments for gender dysphoria.

One is Michael K. Laidlaw, MD, a Rocklin, California–based endocrinologist who has not treated transgender people but frequently writes about the subject, most recently calling the use of puberty blockers “a public health emergency.”

Laidlaw joined several other clinicians who do not treat transgender people in testifying in favor of the South Dakota bill.

Last year, as previously reported by Medscape Medical News, Laidlaw, along with others, criticized the Endocrine Society’s 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline on Treating Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons in a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

They stated that there is no lab, imaging, or other objective test to diagnose someone as transgender and that “the consequences of this gender-affirmative therapy are not trivial and include potential sterility, sexual dysfunction, thromboembolic and cardiovascular disease, and malignancy.”

Laidlaw told Medscape Medical News at the time that “If we’re talking about [transgender] adults [who have gone through puberty of their biological sex] and who can make a decision, if they have been truly notified of the risks and benefits [of cross-sex hormones] and have also had psychological evaluation, and they decide, ‘This is still the right course for me,’ then I don’t have any objection.”

But considering the use of cross-sex hormones in children and adolescents is “quite a different story,” he contended.

In May 2019, Rosenthal, Safer and colleagues responded to Laidlaw’s letter in the same journal, stating that for the right person, puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are appropriate, and that medications can improve mental health outcomes.

“We agree that research to validate the safety and efficacy of all forms of treatment is desirable,” they wrote, noting some of that research is underway.

“However, we believe physicians would fall short in their duty of care if they withheld hormonal treatment of gender dysphoria/incongruence in pubertal youth, when indicated, given the existing state of knowledge, imperfect though it is.”
 

Research to validate safety and efficacy of transgender TX underway

Rosenthal’s center at UCSF is one of four in the United States that has been carrying out a National Institutes of Health-funded long-term observational study of the impact of early medical intervention on transgender adolescents.

It will take time to get those results, but in the meantime, clinicians should act on what is known now, said Rosenthal.

“We already have very compelling data to suggest that the benefits [of treatment] outweigh the potential harms,” he said.

Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News that Laidlaw has advanced the notion that clinicians who prescribe puberty blockers are forcing those individuals into a transgender outcome.

“We don’t push anybody down any path,” he said. “The guidelines make these treatments available in a very specific subset of people who are evaluated by skilled mental health professionals,” said Rosenthal.

Both he and Safer acknowledge that puberty blockers do have the potential for some harm. For instance, a frank discussion needs to happen about the likely lack of future fertility, said Rosenthal.

“Everything we do in medicine has a theoretical risk of harm,” noted Safer.

However, he said, to deny a puberty blocker to an individual approaching puberty who is distraught about growing breasts — but then to possibly have to surgically remove them later — is in itself doing harm.

“Puberty blockers are exactly the epitome of ‘do no harm’ in this case,” argued Safer.

The medications are reversible, he said, adding that they also give an individual and the family time to think through whether the adolescent is transgender, and, if yes, what they want to do in terms of taking cross-sex hormones in the future or getting other interventions.

Safer acknowledged that this doesn’t mean there aren’t still some concerns, however.

For instance, once puberty blockers — which have the potential to interfere with bone development — are started, “How much harm are you willing to risk? Maybe a couple of years is okay, but maybe 6 years is not,” he said.

“So, we do discuss how quickly...you have to get to your next decision point, whether it be to actually introduce hormones or not to introduce hormones,” he explained.
 

State proposals will have chilling effect on gender-questioning kids

Clinicians say that even if the proposals do not become law, just the fact of their existence could have a chilling effect on gender-questioning children, their families, and doctors considering whether to provide treatment.

“They’re already in a hard position,” Brady said of her patients.

“They’re coming here to seek something for a life that they’ve already not wanted to live and then we have people who are trying to put a real big block on that – I see that obviously affecting their mental health,” she observed.

“I can’t imagine how their lives would be without this care,” Brady said.

With the bills being out there, “two things can happen – one is, it can be very depressing and limiting, but it can also embolden people,” Rosenthal told Medscape Medical News.

“The people behind these things are the same people that have tried to stop our research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH),” he explained.

“These people are going to do everything they can, whether it’s to go state by state to try and exhaust us, or go to the NIH and try to get them to pull the plug on our research,” said Rosenthal.

Safer believes it’s ill-considered to try to legislate any aspect of medicine.

“The pitfalls of trying to legislate these things are myriad,” he said.

“Across all of medicine, interventions are very customized. Can you imagine a state legislature trying to legislate the optimal approach in medicines that can and cannot be given to people with diabetes? How crazy that would be,” he noted.

Rosenthal has served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals and is a grantee of the NIH. Safer has also served on an advisory panel for Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brady has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has additionally approved dulaglutide (Trulicity) for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple CV risk factors, the company has announced.

Dulaglutide is a once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist first approved in the United States in 2014 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

It is now the first and only type 2 diabetes medicine approved to reduce the risk of CV events for both primary and secondary prevention populations. The European Medicines Agency approved a similar indication for dulaglutide last fall.

The new US indication is based on results of the CV outcomes trial for dulaglutide, known as REWIND, which was the longest-running CV outcomes trial in the GLP-1 agonist class.

Chair of the REWIND study, Hertzel Gerstein, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario, Canada, said in a Lilly statement that the trial included a “broad population of people living with type 2 diabetes, reflective of those in the general population. We therefore assessed the effect of Trulicity in people with established CVD as well as those with multiple CV risk factors.”

“Globally, over 415 million people have type 2 diabetes, which is itself a CV risk factor. However, only about one third have established CVD, which is why this new indication, and the supporting evidence, is important for the millions of people in the United States living with diabetes,” he added.

Other GLP-1 agonists have been granted approvals for additional reduction of CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes, but only for secondary prevention.

Most recently the FDA expanded the indication for once-weekly semaglutide to include reducing the risk for MACE, including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CVD.
 

Additional approval based on REWIND trial

The REWIND trial included primarily people with type 2 diabetes without established CVD. The full study results were presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions.

REWIND showed a significant reduction in risk of MACE – a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or CV death – which occurred in 12.0% of patients in the dulaglutide group, compared with 13.4% of patients in the placebo group, for a risk reduction of 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.99; P = .026), which was consistent across subgroups.

All three components of the MACE primary endpoint showed a reduction with dulaglutide, compared with placebo, including CV death (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) and nonfatal MI (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), with the strongest and only significant effect seen in nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95).

No difference was seen between groups in hospital admissions for heart failure.

Dulaglutide was also found to modestly reduce weight by around 1.5 kg (P = .0001) and systolic blood pressure by 1.7 mm Hg (P = .0001).

The safety profile of dulaglutide in REWIND was consistent with other members of the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal events being the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation.

Sherry Martin, MD, Lilly’s vice president, medical affairs, noted in the company statement: “For the first time, health care providers can prescribe a diabetes medicine proven to significantly reduce the risk of experiencing a CV event for people with type 2 diabetes with and without established CVD.”

“Trulicity can help people achieve their A_1C goals and protect them from experiencing a CV event with a once-weekly, easy-to-use treatment option,” added Martin.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has additionally approved dulaglutide (Trulicity) for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple CV risk factors, the company has announced.

Dulaglutide is a once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist first approved in the United States in 2014 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

It is now the first and only type 2 diabetes medicine approved to reduce the risk of CV events for both primary and secondary prevention populations. The European Medicines Agency approved a similar indication for dulaglutide last fall.

The new US indication is based on results of the CV outcomes trial for dulaglutide, known as REWIND, which was the longest-running CV outcomes trial in the GLP-1 agonist class.

Chair of the REWIND study, Hertzel Gerstein, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario, Canada, said in a Lilly statement that the trial included a “broad population of people living with type 2 diabetes, reflective of those in the general population. We therefore assessed the effect of Trulicity in people with established CVD as well as those with multiple CV risk factors.”

“Globally, over 415 million people have type 2 diabetes, which is itself a CV risk factor. However, only about one third have established CVD, which is why this new indication, and the supporting evidence, is important for the millions of people in the United States living with diabetes,” he added.

Other GLP-1 agonists have been granted approvals for additional reduction of CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes, but only for secondary prevention.

Most recently the FDA expanded the indication for once-weekly semaglutide to include reducing the risk for MACE, including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CVD.
 

Additional approval based on REWIND trial

The REWIND trial included primarily people with type 2 diabetes without established CVD. The full study results were presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions.

REWIND showed a significant reduction in risk of MACE – a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or CV death – which occurred in 12.0% of patients in the dulaglutide group, compared with 13.4% of patients in the placebo group, for a risk reduction of 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.99; P = .026), which was consistent across subgroups.

All three components of the MACE primary endpoint showed a reduction with dulaglutide, compared with placebo, including CV death (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) and nonfatal MI (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), with the strongest and only significant effect seen in nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95).

No difference was seen between groups in hospital admissions for heart failure.

Dulaglutide was also found to modestly reduce weight by around 1.5 kg (P = .0001) and systolic blood pressure by 1.7 mm Hg (P = .0001).

The safety profile of dulaglutide in REWIND was consistent with other members of the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal events being the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation.

Sherry Martin, MD, Lilly’s vice president, medical affairs, noted in the company statement: “For the first time, health care providers can prescribe a diabetes medicine proven to significantly reduce the risk of experiencing a CV event for people with type 2 diabetes with and without established CVD.”

“Trulicity can help people achieve their A_1C goals and protect them from experiencing a CV event with a once-weekly, easy-to-use treatment option,” added Martin.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has additionally approved dulaglutide (Trulicity) for reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in adults with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple CV risk factors, the company has announced.

Dulaglutide is a once-weekly injectable glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist first approved in the United States in 2014 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

It is now the first and only type 2 diabetes medicine approved to reduce the risk of CV events for both primary and secondary prevention populations. The European Medicines Agency approved a similar indication for dulaglutide last fall.

The new US indication is based on results of the CV outcomes trial for dulaglutide, known as REWIND, which was the longest-running CV outcomes trial in the GLP-1 agonist class.

Chair of the REWIND study, Hertzel Gerstein, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario, Canada, said in a Lilly statement that the trial included a “broad population of people living with type 2 diabetes, reflective of those in the general population. We therefore assessed the effect of Trulicity in people with established CVD as well as those with multiple CV risk factors.”

“Globally, over 415 million people have type 2 diabetes, which is itself a CV risk factor. However, only about one third have established CVD, which is why this new indication, and the supporting evidence, is important for the millions of people in the United States living with diabetes,” he added.

Other GLP-1 agonists have been granted approvals for additional reduction of CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes, but only for secondary prevention.

Most recently the FDA expanded the indication for once-weekly semaglutide to include reducing the risk for MACE, including CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established CVD.
 

Additional approval based on REWIND trial

The REWIND trial included primarily people with type 2 diabetes without established CVD. The full study results were presented at the 2019 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions.

REWIND showed a significant reduction in risk of MACE – a composite endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or CV death – which occurred in 12.0% of patients in the dulaglutide group, compared with 13.4% of patients in the placebo group, for a risk reduction of 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.99; P = .026), which was consistent across subgroups.

All three components of the MACE primary endpoint showed a reduction with dulaglutide, compared with placebo, including CV death (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.06) and nonfatal MI (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.16), with the strongest and only significant effect seen in nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95).

No difference was seen between groups in hospital admissions for heart failure.

Dulaglutide was also found to modestly reduce weight by around 1.5 kg (P = .0001) and systolic blood pressure by 1.7 mm Hg (P = .0001).

The safety profile of dulaglutide in REWIND was consistent with other members of the GLP-1 agonist class, with gastrointestinal events being the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation.

Sherry Martin, MD, Lilly’s vice president, medical affairs, noted in the company statement: “For the first time, health care providers can prescribe a diabetes medicine proven to significantly reduce the risk of experiencing a CV event for people with type 2 diabetes with and without established CVD.”

“Trulicity can help people achieve their A_1C goals and protect them from experiencing a CV event with a once-weekly, easy-to-use treatment option,” added Martin.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Bempedoic acid, the first agent in a new class of drugs that reduce LDL cholesterol, received Food and Drug Administration approval on Feb. 21 for treating selected hypercholesterolemic patients and is a welcome addition to the medicine cabinet, say lipid experts.

MDedge News

However, it is a tertiary option at least until results from a 14,000 patient clinical-outcome trial of bempedoic acid come out, likely in 2022, they agreed.

“I’m excited to have a new tool in the toolkit for treating high-risk patients, but I will always reach first for the drugs proven to reduce clinical outcomes,” said Erin D. Michos, MD, director of Women’s Cardiovascular Health and associate director of Preventive Cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore. That sentiment, shared by other experts, should for the time being relegate bempedoic acid (Nexletol) to a backup role behind statins, ezetimibe, and the PCSK9 inhibitor antibodies that are all now on the U.S. market and all buttressed with evidence of their ability to cut cardiovascular disease death and other CVD outcomes from large outcome studies.

The existing evidence base for bempedoic acid rests primarily two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of bempedoic acid in patients with LDL levels above 70 mg/dL while on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. In CLEAR Harmony, results showed that treatment with bempedoic acid cut LDL-cholesterol levels by an average of 18% more compared with placebo (N Engl J Med 2019;380:1022-32). In CLEAR Wisdom, bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 17% (JAMA. 2019;322[18]:1780-8).

While those two trials proved the drug’s ability to lower levels of LDL cholesterol, they lacked the power to address whether this effect cut the incidence of CVD events, a question that the CLEAR Outcomes trial aims to answer.

“I believe in the lipid hypothesis, but the main thing we need to see is whether bempedoic acid leads to a meaningful reduction in CVD events. The window for bempedoic acid will remain narrow until we see the outcomes results,” Dr. Michos said in an interview.

Bempedoic acid is a prodrug that’s activated in liver and targets the same cholesterol synthesis pathway as statins by inhibition of ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme that’s upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, thereby enhancing LDL cholesterol clearance via up-regulation of LDL receptors

.

Combined treatment with bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “may be successful in avoiding [using] a PCSK9 inhibitor in some patients, and in particular patients with HeFH or those who are statin intolerant.” But like his colleagues, Dr. Eckel agreed that, for the moment, ezetimibe has an edge over bempedoic acid because of its more extensive evidence base. “If the combination of bempedoic acid and ezetimibe is not needed, the decision [of which one of these to use] needs to depend on the outcome trial results for ezetimibe,” he said. Other factors clinicians could apply if faced with choosing between these two agents include the significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein that bempedoic acid produces; the downside that bempedoic acid can cause in some patients an early and persistent rise in serum uric acid levels that can trigger gout flares in patients with a history of gout or at risk for gout; and cost, he said.

Cost is the room-dwelling elephant that colors many decisions about which lipid-lowering drug to use for patients, with options running the price gamut from the generic and uniformly affordable statins and ezetimibe, to the notoriously pricey PCSK9 inhibitors that remain for many patients either prohibitively expensive or hard to get covered by some insurers. Bempedoic acid seems on track to fall somewhere between these two poles, although staff members from Esperion, the company that developed and will market bempedoic acid as Nexletol starting on March 30, declared in a conference call on Feb. 24 that “cost will not be an issue,” for indicated patients prescribed the drug. Company representatives cited a program of coupons, discounts, and rebates they have planned that they anticipate will allow patients who meet the labeled indications to have an out-of-pocket cost for bempedoic acid of “as low as” $10 for a 90-pill supply. They also noted their goal of getting bempedoic acid onto the lowest tier of the Medicare formulary.

How these steps actually play out in the fun house of U.S. prescription drug pricing and preauthorizations remains to be seen. “Out-of-pocket costs are not the real drivers” of drug access, noted Dr. Robinson. “Insurers will likely start with restricted access and prior authorization requirements, just as they did with ezetimibe when it was on patent and prior to having the results from a CVD outcomes trial.” For the time being, bempedoic acid can generally be seen as “expensive ezetimibe,” summed up Dr. Robinson.

Despite that somewhat dismissive characterization, experts are intrigued by the possibility of combining two moderately potent, oral, and safe lipid-lowering drugs in selected patients as a potential alternative to the still financially challenging PCSK9 inhibitors. Combining bempedoic acid and ezetimibe “has a lot of appeal,” said Dr. Michos. “Even though preauthorization has gotten better, it’s still a challenge to get a PCSK9 inhibitor approved.”

Much of her enthusiasm stems from a study reported last year that randomized 301 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, or both. The results showed that combined treatment has a similar safety profile to treatment with either drug alone, and produced a cut in LDL cholesterol that was roughly additive for the reductions produced by each drug by itself: Ezetimibe alone cut LDL by about 23%, bempedoic acid alone by about 17%, and the two dosed together once daily resulted in an average 36% drop (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864671). The results showed that, “in patients requiring intensive LDL cholesterol lowering, who cannot afford PCSK9 inhibitors, or have statin intolerance, bempedoic acid and ezetimibe are stronger together and can serve as an alternative approach for lipid management in ASCVD prevention,” wrote Dr. Michos and a coauthor in a commentary that appeared with the study results (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1177/2047487319864672).

The concept of combined bempedoic acid and ezetimibe treatment is so appealing that the bempedoic acid manufacturer, Esperion, has already developed a single-pill formulation of the two drugs that received FDA marketing approval on February 26. A company statement said that marketing of this combined formulation, Nexlizet, will start in July 2020.

Although interest in bempedoic acid seems running high for patients included in the new FDA indication, Dr. Michos and others see possibly greater potential for what would now be off-label use for primary prevention in high-risk patients without HeFH, patients who generally don’t qualify for insurance coverage of a PCSK9 inhibitor.

“Use in primary prevention in [non-HeFH] patients with insufficient lowering of LDL cholesterol wouldn’t surprise me,” but a big concern will be out-of-pocket cost when off-label use precludes insurance coverage or discount eligibility, noted Dr. Eckel. An Esperion spokesperson said that the undiscounted, wholesale acquisition cost for bempedoic acid is expected to be roughly $10/pill, or about $300 for a 30-day supply, positioning it more or less midway between generic statins and ezetimibe and the list price for a PCSk9 inhibitor of roughly $500/month.

“I’m most excited about bempedoic acid in the off-label space, for patients who can’t get approved for a PCSK9 inhibitor, for treating patients with subclinical ASCVD, or really high-risk patients with multiple risk factors including diabetes,” especially when these patients are intolerant of a high-intensity statin regimen, said Dr. Michos. “I have a clinic full of patients” who can’t take their full, indicated dosage of a high-intensity statin, and when those patients also can’t get on treatment with a PCSK9 inhibitor then bempedoic acid will be an important part of their alternative regimen, she explained.

Dr. Michos had no disclosures. Dr. Robinson has received research funding from Esperion and from several other companies, and she has been a consultant to Amgen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Eckel has received honoraria from Kowa, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi/Regeneron.

This article was updated 2/27/20.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Women who had gestational diabetes mellitus had an increased risk for later type 2 diabetes if they carried certain genetic risk factors for the disease, according to a new analysis in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care of data from two independent populations.

A higher genetic risk score (GRS) had a modest association with developing type 2 diabetes, but a healthier diet may mitigate this risk, as Mengying Li, PhD, and her colleagues found for participants in the Nurses’ Health Study and members of the Danish National Birth Cohort who developed gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Of 1,884 white women with a history of GDM in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), 446 (23.7%) went on to develop type 2 diabetes, and of the 550 women who had GDM in the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), 155 (28.2%) developed the disease. The researchers calculated a GRS for type 2 diabetes for the full cohort. Genome-wide association studies completed in European populations were used to identify 59 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the disease.

Dr. Li, an epidemiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md., and her coauthors found that women whose GRS was in the highest quartile had a relative risk of 1.19 for type 2 diabetes. The relative risks for the three lower quartiles were 1.25, 0.97, and 1.00, respectively (P value for trend = .02). For each increase of five risk alleles in the GRS, NHSII participants had a 7% increased risk for type 2 diabetes, and DNBC participants saw a 9% increased risk.

Comparing these findings with other studies looking at genetic risk and type 2 diabetes in the general population, Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that the increase in relative risk for type 2 disease with increase in GRS was actually slightly weaker in the GDM cohort they studied. “The smaller effect size among women with GDM likely reflects an already higher baseline genetic risk for [type 2 diabetes] than the general population, as we have demonstrated,” they explained.

Though 11 individual SNPs had a significant individual association with the risk for type 2 diabetes initially, that association disappeared after correction for a false-discovery rate. Dr. Li and her coinvestigators conducted a sensitivity analysis that included only 42 SNPs that were later definitively associated with type 2 disease and they saw essentially unchanged results.

The researchers also investigated how dietary quality affected the GRS–type 2 diabetes association by dichotomizing self-reported diet quality in both cohorts into healthier diet quality and less healthy diet quality. They found a tighter association between GRS and type 2 diabetes for women with diet quality below the median, whereas women with higher diet quality did not have such a strong association between GRS and type 2 disease. The researchers wrote that there was “suggestive evidence that a healthful diet might mitigate the excessive risk of T2D [type 2 diabetes] related to greater genetic susceptibility, which supports public health efforts of encouraging a healthful diet” for diabetes prevention in this high-risk population.

Patients in the NHSII were followed for a mean 21.3 years, and those in the DNBC were followed for a mean 12.7 years. Mean age at index pregnancy was 30.5 years for the NHSII cohort and 31.7 for the DNBC cohort. In the NHSII cohort, just 8.4% of participants reported smoking before pregnancy, compared with 26.4% of those in the DNBC cohort. The NHSII cohort participants, wrote Dr. Li and her coauthors, “were also less likely to have a family history of diabetes, less likely to smoke, and be leaner than women in the DNBC.”

Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that, “despite being the largest genetic study by far on [type 2 diabetes] among women with GDM, our study may not be sufficiently powered to examine the associations of individual T2D SNPs in relation to the risk of developing T2D.” Another limitation was that for the Danish cohort, information about diet was drawn from a one-time questionnaire administered between 9 and 16 years after the index pregnancy, so full data about dietary quality over time was not available. Also of note is that the study included only white participants, limiting generalizability to women of color. The authors called for expanding this research into more racially diverse populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li M et al. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000850.

Women who had gestational diabetes mellitus had an increased risk for later type 2 diabetes if they carried certain genetic risk factors for the disease, according to a new analysis in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care of data from two independent populations.

A higher genetic risk score (GRS) had a modest association with developing type 2 diabetes, but a healthier diet may mitigate this risk, as Mengying Li, PhD, and her colleagues found for participants in the Nurses’ Health Study and members of the Danish National Birth Cohort who developed gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Of 1,884 white women with a history of GDM in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), 446 (23.7%) went on to develop type 2 diabetes, and of the 550 women who had GDM in the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), 155 (28.2%) developed the disease. The researchers calculated a GRS for type 2 diabetes for the full cohort. Genome-wide association studies completed in European populations were used to identify 59 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the disease.

Dr. Li, an epidemiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md., and her coauthors found that women whose GRS was in the highest quartile had a relative risk of 1.19 for type 2 diabetes. The relative risks for the three lower quartiles were 1.25, 0.97, and 1.00, respectively (P value for trend = .02). For each increase of five risk alleles in the GRS, NHSII participants had a 7% increased risk for type 2 diabetes, and DNBC participants saw a 9% increased risk.

Comparing these findings with other studies looking at genetic risk and type 2 diabetes in the general population, Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that the increase in relative risk for type 2 disease with increase in GRS was actually slightly weaker in the GDM cohort they studied. “The smaller effect size among women with GDM likely reflects an already higher baseline genetic risk for [type 2 diabetes] than the general population, as we have demonstrated,” they explained.

Though 11 individual SNPs had a significant individual association with the risk for type 2 diabetes initially, that association disappeared after correction for a false-discovery rate. Dr. Li and her coinvestigators conducted a sensitivity analysis that included only 42 SNPs that were later definitively associated with type 2 disease and they saw essentially unchanged results.

The researchers also investigated how dietary quality affected the GRS–type 2 diabetes association by dichotomizing self-reported diet quality in both cohorts into healthier diet quality and less healthy diet quality. They found a tighter association between GRS and type 2 diabetes for women with diet quality below the median, whereas women with higher diet quality did not have such a strong association between GRS and type 2 disease. The researchers wrote that there was “suggestive evidence that a healthful diet might mitigate the excessive risk of T2D [type 2 diabetes] related to greater genetic susceptibility, which supports public health efforts of encouraging a healthful diet” for diabetes prevention in this high-risk population.

Patients in the NHSII were followed for a mean 21.3 years, and those in the DNBC were followed for a mean 12.7 years. Mean age at index pregnancy was 30.5 years for the NHSII cohort and 31.7 for the DNBC cohort. In the NHSII cohort, just 8.4% of participants reported smoking before pregnancy, compared with 26.4% of those in the DNBC cohort. The NHSII cohort participants, wrote Dr. Li and her coauthors, “were also less likely to have a family history of diabetes, less likely to smoke, and be leaner than women in the DNBC.”

Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that, “despite being the largest genetic study by far on [type 2 diabetes] among women with GDM, our study may not be sufficiently powered to examine the associations of individual T2D SNPs in relation to the risk of developing T2D.” Another limitation was that for the Danish cohort, information about diet was drawn from a one-time questionnaire administered between 9 and 16 years after the index pregnancy, so full data about dietary quality over time was not available. Also of note is that the study included only white participants, limiting generalizability to women of color. The authors called for expanding this research into more racially diverse populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li M et al. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000850.

Women who had gestational diabetes mellitus had an increased risk for later type 2 diabetes if they carried certain genetic risk factors for the disease, according to a new analysis in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care of data from two independent populations.

A higher genetic risk score (GRS) had a modest association with developing type 2 diabetes, but a healthier diet may mitigate this risk, as Mengying Li, PhD, and her colleagues found for participants in the Nurses’ Health Study and members of the Danish National Birth Cohort who developed gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Of 1,884 white women with a history of GDM in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), 446 (23.7%) went on to develop type 2 diabetes, and of the 550 women who had GDM in the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), 155 (28.2%) developed the disease. The researchers calculated a GRS for type 2 diabetes for the full cohort. Genome-wide association studies completed in European populations were used to identify 59 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the disease.

Dr. Li, an epidemiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md., and her coauthors found that women whose GRS was in the highest quartile had a relative risk of 1.19 for type 2 diabetes. The relative risks for the three lower quartiles were 1.25, 0.97, and 1.00, respectively (P value for trend = .02). For each increase of five risk alleles in the GRS, NHSII participants had a 7% increased risk for type 2 diabetes, and DNBC participants saw a 9% increased risk.

Comparing these findings with other studies looking at genetic risk and type 2 diabetes in the general population, Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that the increase in relative risk for type 2 disease with increase in GRS was actually slightly weaker in the GDM cohort they studied. “The smaller effect size among women with GDM likely reflects an already higher baseline genetic risk for [type 2 diabetes] than the general population, as we have demonstrated,” they explained.

Though 11 individual SNPs had a significant individual association with the risk for type 2 diabetes initially, that association disappeared after correction for a false-discovery rate. Dr. Li and her coinvestigators conducted a sensitivity analysis that included only 42 SNPs that were later definitively associated with type 2 disease and they saw essentially unchanged results.

The researchers also investigated how dietary quality affected the GRS–type 2 diabetes association by dichotomizing self-reported diet quality in both cohorts into healthier diet quality and less healthy diet quality. They found a tighter association between GRS and type 2 diabetes for women with diet quality below the median, whereas women with higher diet quality did not have such a strong association between GRS and type 2 disease. The researchers wrote that there was “suggestive evidence that a healthful diet might mitigate the excessive risk of T2D [type 2 diabetes] related to greater genetic susceptibility, which supports public health efforts of encouraging a healthful diet” for diabetes prevention in this high-risk population.

Patients in the NHSII were followed for a mean 21.3 years, and those in the DNBC were followed for a mean 12.7 years. Mean age at index pregnancy was 30.5 years for the NHSII cohort and 31.7 for the DNBC cohort. In the NHSII cohort, just 8.4% of participants reported smoking before pregnancy, compared with 26.4% of those in the DNBC cohort. The NHSII cohort participants, wrote Dr. Li and her coauthors, “were also less likely to have a family history of diabetes, less likely to smoke, and be leaner than women in the DNBC.”

Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that, “despite being the largest genetic study by far on [type 2 diabetes] among women with GDM, our study may not be sufficiently powered to examine the associations of individual T2D SNPs in relation to the risk of developing T2D.” Another limitation was that for the Danish cohort, information about diet was drawn from a one-time questionnaire administered between 9 and 16 years after the index pregnancy, so full data about dietary quality over time was not available. Also of note is that the study included only white participants, limiting generalizability to women of color. The authors called for expanding this research into more racially diverse populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li M et al. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000850.

Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy is associated with higher bone mineral content in the offspring, even up to 6 years after birth, research suggests.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

“The well-established tracking of bone mineralization from early life throughout childhood and early adulthood is a key factor for the final peak bone mass gained and the subsequent risk of fractures and osteoporosis later in life,” wrote Nicklas Brustad, MD, of the Herlev and Gentofte Hospital at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors. Their report is in JAMA Pediatrics.This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of high versus standard dose vitamin D supplementation in 623 pregnant Danish women and the outcomes in their 584 children. The women were randomized either to a daily dose of 2,400 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or matching placebo capsules from 24 weeks’ gestation until 1 week after birth. All women were advised to maintain a daily intake of 400 IU of vitamin D₃.

The children underwent anthropometric growth assessments regularly up to age 6 years, and underwent whole-body dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (DXA) scanning at 3 years and 6 years.

At 3 years, children of mothers who received the vitamin D supplements showed significantly higher mean total-body-less-head (TBLH) bone mineral content (BMC) compared with those who received placebo (294 g vs. 289 g) and total-body BMC (526 g vs. 514 g), respectively, after adjustment for age, sex, height, and weight.

The difference in total-body BMC was particularly evident in children of mothers who had insufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D levels (538 g vs. 514 g). The study also saw higher head bone mineral density (BMD) in children of mothers with insufficient vitamin D at baseline who received supplementation.

At 6 years, there still were significant differences in BMC between the supplementation and placebo groups. Children in the vitamin D group had an 8-g greater TBLH BMC compared with those in the placebo group, and a 14-g higher total BMC.

Among the children of mothers with insufficient preintervention vitamin D, there was an 18-g higher mean total BMC and 0.0125 g/cm² greater total BMD, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D at baseline.

Overall, the children of mothers who received high-dose vitamin D supplementation had a mean 8-g higher TBLH BMC, a mean 0.023 g/cm² higher head BMD, and a mean 12-g higher total BMC.

Dr. Brustad and associates noted that the head could represent the most sensitive compartment for intervention, because 80% of bone mineralization of the skull occurs by the age of 3 years.

The study also showed a seasonal effect, such that mothers who gave birth in winter showed the greatest effects of vitamin D supplementation on head BMC.

There was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower fracture rate among children in the supplementation group, compared with the placebo group.

“We speculate that these intervention effects could be of importance for bone health and osteoporosis risk in adult life, which is supported by our likely underpowered post hoc analysis on fracture risk, suggesting an almost 40% reduced incidence of fractures of the larger bones in the high-dose vitamin D group,” the authors wrote.

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to affect the children’s growth. At 6 years, there were no significant differences between the two groups in body mass index, height, weight, or waist, head, and thorax circumference.

Neonatologist Carol Wagner, MD, said in an interview that the study provided an absolute reason for vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy.

“At the very least, a study like this argues for much more than is recommended by the European nutrition group or the U.S. group,” said Dr. Wagner, professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Here you have a therapy that costs literally pennies a day, and no one should be deficient.”

She also pointed out that the study was able to show significant effects on BMC despite the fact that there would have been considerable variation in postnatal vitamin D intake from breast milk or formula.

Cristina Palacios, PhD, an associate professor in the department of dietetics and nutrition at Florida International University, Miami, said that vitamin D deficiency is increasingly prevalent worldwide, and is associated with a return of rickets – the skeletal disorder caused by vitamin D deficiency – in children.

“If women are deficient during pregnancy, providing vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy may promote bone health in their offspring,” Dr. Palacios said in an interview. “Because vitamin D is such an important component of bone metabolism, this could prevent future rickets in these children.”

Dr. Palacios coauthored a recent Cochrane review that examined the safety of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, and said the analysis found no evidence of safety concerns.

The study was supported by The Lundbeck Foundation, the Ministry of Health, Danish Council for Strategic Research, and the Capital Region Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brustad N et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6083.

Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy is associated with higher bone mineral content in the offspring, even up to 6 years after birth, research suggests.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

“The well-established tracking of bone mineralization from early life throughout childhood and early adulthood is a key factor for the final peak bone mass gained and the subsequent risk of fractures and osteoporosis later in life,” wrote Nicklas Brustad, MD, of the Herlev and Gentofte Hospital at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors. Their report is in JAMA Pediatrics.This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of high versus standard dose vitamin D supplementation in 623 pregnant Danish women and the outcomes in their 584 children. The women were randomized either to a daily dose of 2,400 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or matching placebo capsules from 24 weeks’ gestation until 1 week after birth. All women were advised to maintain a daily intake of 400 IU of vitamin D₃.

The children underwent anthropometric growth assessments regularly up to age 6 years, and underwent whole-body dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (DXA) scanning at 3 years and 6 years.

At 3 years, children of mothers who received the vitamin D supplements showed significantly higher mean total-body-less-head (TBLH) bone mineral content (BMC) compared with those who received placebo (294 g vs. 289 g) and total-body BMC (526 g vs. 514 g), respectively, after adjustment for age, sex, height, and weight.

The difference in total-body BMC was particularly evident in children of mothers who had insufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D levels (538 g vs. 514 g). The study also saw higher head bone mineral density (BMD) in children of mothers with insufficient vitamin D at baseline who received supplementation.

At 6 years, there still were significant differences in BMC between the supplementation and placebo groups. Children in the vitamin D group had an 8-g greater TBLH BMC compared with those in the placebo group, and a 14-g higher total BMC.

Among the children of mothers with insufficient preintervention vitamin D, there was an 18-g higher mean total BMC and 0.0125 g/cm² greater total BMD, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D at baseline.

Overall, the children of mothers who received high-dose vitamin D supplementation had a mean 8-g higher TBLH BMC, a mean 0.023 g/cm² higher head BMD, and a mean 12-g higher total BMC.

Dr. Brustad and associates noted that the head could represent the most sensitive compartment for intervention, because 80% of bone mineralization of the skull occurs by the age of 3 years.

The study also showed a seasonal effect, such that mothers who gave birth in winter showed the greatest effects of vitamin D supplementation on head BMC.

There was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower fracture rate among children in the supplementation group, compared with the placebo group.

“We speculate that these intervention effects could be of importance for bone health and osteoporosis risk in adult life, which is supported by our likely underpowered post hoc analysis on fracture risk, suggesting an almost 40% reduced incidence of fractures of the larger bones in the high-dose vitamin D group,” the authors wrote.

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to affect the children’s growth. At 6 years, there were no significant differences between the two groups in body mass index, height, weight, or waist, head, and thorax circumference.

Neonatologist Carol Wagner, MD, said in an interview that the study provided an absolute reason for vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy.

“At the very least, a study like this argues for much more than is recommended by the European nutrition group or the U.S. group,” said Dr. Wagner, professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Here you have a therapy that costs literally pennies a day, and no one should be deficient.”

She also pointed out that the study was able to show significant effects on BMC despite the fact that there would have been considerable variation in postnatal vitamin D intake from breast milk or formula.

Cristina Palacios, PhD, an associate professor in the department of dietetics and nutrition at Florida International University, Miami, said that vitamin D deficiency is increasingly prevalent worldwide, and is associated with a return of rickets – the skeletal disorder caused by vitamin D deficiency – in children.

“If women are deficient during pregnancy, providing vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy may promote bone health in their offspring,” Dr. Palacios said in an interview. “Because vitamin D is such an important component of bone metabolism, this could prevent future rickets in these children.”

Dr. Palacios coauthored a recent Cochrane review that examined the safety of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, and said the analysis found no evidence of safety concerns.

The study was supported by The Lundbeck Foundation, the Ministry of Health, Danish Council for Strategic Research, and the Capital Region Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brustad N et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6083.

Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy is associated with higher bone mineral content in the offspring, even up to 6 years after birth, research suggests.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

“The well-established tracking of bone mineralization from early life throughout childhood and early adulthood is a key factor for the final peak bone mass gained and the subsequent risk of fractures and osteoporosis later in life,” wrote Nicklas Brustad, MD, of the Herlev and Gentofte Hospital at the University of Copenhagen, and coauthors. Their report is in JAMA Pediatrics.This was a secondary analysis of a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of high versus standard dose vitamin D supplementation in 623 pregnant Danish women and the outcomes in their 584 children. The women were randomized either to a daily dose of 2,400 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or matching placebo capsules from 24 weeks’ gestation until 1 week after birth. All women were advised to maintain a daily intake of 400 IU of vitamin D₃.

The children underwent anthropometric growth assessments regularly up to age 6 years, and underwent whole-body dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (DXA) scanning at 3 years and 6 years.

At 3 years, children of mothers who received the vitamin D supplements showed significantly higher mean total-body-less-head (TBLH) bone mineral content (BMC) compared with those who received placebo (294 g vs. 289 g) and total-body BMC (526 g vs. 514 g), respectively, after adjustment for age, sex, height, and weight.

The difference in total-body BMC was particularly evident in children of mothers who had insufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D levels (538 g vs. 514 g). The study also saw higher head bone mineral density (BMD) in children of mothers with insufficient vitamin D at baseline who received supplementation.

At 6 years, there still were significant differences in BMC between the supplementation and placebo groups. Children in the vitamin D group had an 8-g greater TBLH BMC compared with those in the placebo group, and a 14-g higher total BMC.

Among the children of mothers with insufficient preintervention vitamin D, there was an 18-g higher mean total BMC and 0.0125 g/cm² greater total BMD, compared with those with sufficient vitamin D at baseline.

Overall, the children of mothers who received high-dose vitamin D supplementation had a mean 8-g higher TBLH BMC, a mean 0.023 g/cm² higher head BMD, and a mean 12-g higher total BMC.

Dr. Brustad and associates noted that the head could represent the most sensitive compartment for intervention, because 80% of bone mineralization of the skull occurs by the age of 3 years.

The study also showed a seasonal effect, such that mothers who gave birth in winter showed the greatest effects of vitamin D supplementation on head BMC.

There was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower fracture rate among children in the supplementation group, compared with the placebo group.

“We speculate that these intervention effects could be of importance for bone health and osteoporosis risk in adult life, which is supported by our likely underpowered post hoc analysis on fracture risk, suggesting an almost 40% reduced incidence of fractures of the larger bones in the high-dose vitamin D group,” the authors wrote.

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to affect the children’s growth. At 6 years, there were no significant differences between the two groups in body mass index, height, weight, or waist, head, and thorax circumference.

Neonatologist Carol Wagner, MD, said in an interview that the study provided an absolute reason for vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy.

“At the very least, a study like this argues for much more than is recommended by the European nutrition group or the U.S. group,” said Dr. Wagner, professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Here you have a therapy that costs literally pennies a day, and no one should be deficient.”

She also pointed out that the study was able to show significant effects on BMC despite the fact that there would have been considerable variation in postnatal vitamin D intake from breast milk or formula.

Cristina Palacios, PhD, an associate professor in the department of dietetics and nutrition at Florida International University, Miami, said that vitamin D deficiency is increasingly prevalent worldwide, and is associated with a return of rickets – the skeletal disorder caused by vitamin D deficiency – in children.

“If women are deficient during pregnancy, providing vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy may promote bone health in their offspring,” Dr. Palacios said in an interview. “Because vitamin D is such an important component of bone metabolism, this could prevent future rickets in these children.”

Dr. Palacios coauthored a recent Cochrane review that examined the safety of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, and said the analysis found no evidence of safety concerns.

The study was supported by The Lundbeck Foundation, the Ministry of Health, Danish Council for Strategic Research, and the Capital Region Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Brustad N et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2020 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.6083.

Manufacturers will be able to begin submitting licensing applications for biosimilar insulin beginning March 23.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The Food and Drug Administration published Feb. 21 in the Federal Register a final rule that transitions insulin and other products from regulation as a drug to a biologic. This will provide manufacturers access to the biosimilars approval pathway and is expected to bring more competition to the insulin market. The move comes as insulin manufacturers continue to get increased scrutiny over the significantly increased pricing of their products in recent years.

The transition was required under a provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

The move is expected to have no impact on the distribution of insulin and other products affected by the transition.

“In general, prescribers should continue to prescribe and order insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition,” the FDA said in an FAQ on the transition for physicians and other health care workers. “In general, pharmacists should continue to dispense and counsel about insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition. Prescribers and pharmacists should ensure their patients understand there are no changes to the product and they should continue to use the product the same way as before the transition.”

Other products affected by the transition include human growth hormone (somatropin), pancrelipase, chorionic gonadotropin, follitropin alfa, and menotropins. Information on all the transitioning products will move from the Orange Book (which lists FDA-approved drug products with therapeutic equivalent evaluations) to the Purple Book (which lists FDA-licensed biological products with reference product exclusivity data and biosimilar/interchangeability evaluations).

The FDA in the FAQ reiterated its commitment to reviewing any applications for these transition products within 12 months of submission.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Manufacturers will be able to begin submitting licensing applications for biosimilar insulin beginning March 23.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The Food and Drug Administration published Feb. 21 in the Federal Register a final rule that transitions insulin and other products from regulation as a drug to a biologic. This will provide manufacturers access to the biosimilars approval pathway and is expected to bring more competition to the insulin market. The move comes as insulin manufacturers continue to get increased scrutiny over the significantly increased pricing of their products in recent years.

The transition was required under a provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

The move is expected to have no impact on the distribution of insulin and other products affected by the transition.

“In general, prescribers should continue to prescribe and order insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition,” the FDA said in an FAQ on the transition for physicians and other health care workers. “In general, pharmacists should continue to dispense and counsel about insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition. Prescribers and pharmacists should ensure their patients understand there are no changes to the product and they should continue to use the product the same way as before the transition.”

Other products affected by the transition include human growth hormone (somatropin), pancrelipase, chorionic gonadotropin, follitropin alfa, and menotropins. Information on all the transitioning products will move from the Orange Book (which lists FDA-approved drug products with therapeutic equivalent evaluations) to the Purple Book (which lists FDA-licensed biological products with reference product exclusivity data and biosimilar/interchangeability evaluations).

The FDA in the FAQ reiterated its commitment to reviewing any applications for these transition products within 12 months of submission.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

Manufacturers will be able to begin submitting licensing applications for biosimilar insulin beginning March 23.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

The Food and Drug Administration published Feb. 21 in the Federal Register a final rule that transitions insulin and other products from regulation as a drug to a biologic. This will provide manufacturers access to the biosimilars approval pathway and is expected to bring more competition to the insulin market. The move comes as insulin manufacturers continue to get increased scrutiny over the significantly increased pricing of their products in recent years.

The transition was required under a provision of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009.

The move is expected to have no impact on the distribution of insulin and other products affected by the transition.

“In general, prescribers should continue to prescribe and order insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition,” the FDA said in an FAQ on the transition for physicians and other health care workers. “In general, pharmacists should continue to dispense and counsel about insulin and other biological products the same way they did before the transition. Prescribers and pharmacists should ensure their patients understand there are no changes to the product and they should continue to use the product the same way as before the transition.”

Other products affected by the transition include human growth hormone (somatropin), pancrelipase, chorionic gonadotropin, follitropin alfa, and menotropins. Information on all the transitioning products will move from the Orange Book (which lists FDA-approved drug products with therapeutic equivalent evaluations) to the Purple Book (which lists FDA-licensed biological products with reference product exclusivity data and biosimilar/interchangeability evaluations).

The FDA in the FAQ reiterated its commitment to reviewing any applications for these transition products within 12 months of submission.

gtwachtman@mdedge.com