Clinical Endocrinology News

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a triple-combination tablet (Trijardy XR), comprising empagliflozin (Jardiance), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and extended-release metformin hydrochloride, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Trijardy XR will be available in four different dosages and is indicated as a once-daily treatment, together with diet and exercise, for adults who are already on treatment for type 2 disease but require additional agents to attain healthy hemoglobin A_1c targets, according to a statement released by Eli Lilly, which will market the newly approved treatment together with Boehringer Ingelheim.

“Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease that often requires the use of multiple antidiabetic medications to improve glycemic control. Having three different diabetes medications in a single tablet is an important advance in diabetes treatment,” Ralph DeFronzo, MD, professor and diabetes division chief at the University of Texas Health San Antonio, said in the release.

All three drugs are separately well-established therapies for type 2 diabetes. Metformin is the most commonly prescribed treatment for type 2. Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, and linagliptin, a single-dose dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, are approved for the reduction of blood sugar in patients with type 2 disease, and empagliflozin is also approved for lowering the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 and established cardiovascular disease, according to the statement. (In 2015, the FDA approved a combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin, Glyxambi, as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.)

The approval of the triple-combination treatment was based on findings from two randomized, open-label trials that assessed the bioequivalence of empagliflozin, linagliptin, and extended-release metformin hydrochloride fixed-dose combination tablets, as well as their individual components. In addition, the trials established that the safety profile of the combination therapy was similar to the safety profiles of the components, the statement said.

Lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, and heart failure are among the side effects associated with the combination therapy, with upper respiratory tract infection and gastroenteritis among the most common. Serious side effects include dehydration, ketoacidosis, kidney problems, urinary tract and vaginal yeast infections, and hypoglycemia.

As with empagliflozin and linagliptin alone, the combination therapy is not recommended for individuals with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis, and it has not been tested in patients with a history of pancreatitis. The combination also has a warning for lactic acidosis, a rare, but serious, condition that can arise with metformin accumulation.

The combination product is contraindicated for people with kidney problems and end-stage renal disease or who are on dialysis; have metabolic acidosis or diabetic ketoacidosis; or are allergic to empagliflozin, linagliptin, or metformin.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a triple-combination tablet (Trijardy XR), comprising empagliflozin (Jardiance), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and extended-release metformin hydrochloride, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Trijardy XR will be available in four different dosages and is indicated as a once-daily treatment, together with diet and exercise, for adults who are already on treatment for type 2 disease but require additional agents to attain healthy hemoglobin A_1c targets, according to a statement released by Eli Lilly, which will market the newly approved treatment together with Boehringer Ingelheim.

“Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease that often requires the use of multiple antidiabetic medications to improve glycemic control. Having three different diabetes medications in a single tablet is an important advance in diabetes treatment,” Ralph DeFronzo, MD, professor and diabetes division chief at the University of Texas Health San Antonio, said in the release.

All three drugs are separately well-established therapies for type 2 diabetes. Metformin is the most commonly prescribed treatment for type 2. Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, and linagliptin, a single-dose dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, are approved for the reduction of blood sugar in patients with type 2 disease, and empagliflozin is also approved for lowering the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 and established cardiovascular disease, according to the statement. (In 2015, the FDA approved a combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin, Glyxambi, as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.)

The approval of the triple-combination treatment was based on findings from two randomized, open-label trials that assessed the bioequivalence of empagliflozin, linagliptin, and extended-release metformin hydrochloride fixed-dose combination tablets, as well as their individual components. In addition, the trials established that the safety profile of the combination therapy was similar to the safety profiles of the components, the statement said.

Lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, and heart failure are among the side effects associated with the combination therapy, with upper respiratory tract infection and gastroenteritis among the most common. Serious side effects include dehydration, ketoacidosis, kidney problems, urinary tract and vaginal yeast infections, and hypoglycemia.

As with empagliflozin and linagliptin alone, the combination therapy is not recommended for individuals with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis, and it has not been tested in patients with a history of pancreatitis. The combination also has a warning for lactic acidosis, a rare, but serious, condition that can arise with metformin accumulation.

The combination product is contraindicated for people with kidney problems and end-stage renal disease or who are on dialysis; have metabolic acidosis or diabetic ketoacidosis; or are allergic to empagliflozin, linagliptin, or metformin.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a triple-combination tablet (Trijardy XR), comprising empagliflozin (Jardiance), linagliptin (Tradjenta), and extended-release metformin hydrochloride, for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Trijardy XR will be available in four different dosages and is indicated as a once-daily treatment, together with diet and exercise, for adults who are already on treatment for type 2 disease but require additional agents to attain healthy hemoglobin A_1c targets, according to a statement released by Eli Lilly, which will market the newly approved treatment together with Boehringer Ingelheim.

“Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease that often requires the use of multiple antidiabetic medications to improve glycemic control. Having three different diabetes medications in a single tablet is an important advance in diabetes treatment,” Ralph DeFronzo, MD, professor and diabetes division chief at the University of Texas Health San Antonio, said in the release.

All three drugs are separately well-established therapies for type 2 diabetes. Metformin is the most commonly prescribed treatment for type 2. Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor, and linagliptin, a single-dose dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor, are approved for the reduction of blood sugar in patients with type 2 disease, and empagliflozin is also approved for lowering the risk of cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 and established cardiovascular disease, according to the statement. (In 2015, the FDA approved a combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin, Glyxambi, as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes.)

The approval of the triple-combination treatment was based on findings from two randomized, open-label trials that assessed the bioequivalence of empagliflozin, linagliptin, and extended-release metformin hydrochloride fixed-dose combination tablets, as well as their individual components. In addition, the trials established that the safety profile of the combination therapy was similar to the safety profiles of the components, the statement said.

Lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, and heart failure are among the side effects associated with the combination therapy, with upper respiratory tract infection and gastroenteritis among the most common. Serious side effects include dehydration, ketoacidosis, kidney problems, urinary tract and vaginal yeast infections, and hypoglycemia.

As with empagliflozin and linagliptin alone, the combination therapy is not recommended for individuals with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis, and it has not been tested in patients with a history of pancreatitis. The combination also has a warning for lactic acidosis, a rare, but serious, condition that can arise with metformin accumulation.

The combination product is contraindicated for people with kidney problems and end-stage renal disease or who are on dialysis; have metabolic acidosis or diabetic ketoacidosis; or are allergic to empagliflozin, linagliptin, or metformin.

Shave and a haircut … and a blood glucose test? A study shows that barbershops owned by black proprietors can play a role in encouraging black men to get screened for diabetes.

In research letter published in the Jan. 27 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, Marcela Osorio, BA, from New York University and coauthors wrote that black men with diabetes have disproportionately high rates of diabetes complications and lower survival rates. Their diagnosis is often delayed, particularly among men without regular primary health care.

gisele/Getty Images

SOURCE: Osorio M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6867.

Shave and a haircut … and a blood glucose test? A study shows that barbershops owned by black proprietors can play a role in encouraging black men to get screened for diabetes.

In research letter published in the Jan. 27 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, Marcela Osorio, BA, from New York University and coauthors wrote that black men with diabetes have disproportionately high rates of diabetes complications and lower survival rates. Their diagnosis is often delayed, particularly among men without regular primary health care.

gisele/Getty Images

SOURCE: Osorio M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6867.

Shave and a haircut … and a blood glucose test? A study shows that barbershops owned by black proprietors can play a role in encouraging black men to get screened for diabetes.

In research letter published in the Jan. 27 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine, Marcela Osorio, BA, from New York University and coauthors wrote that black men with diabetes have disproportionately high rates of diabetes complications and lower survival rates. Their diagnosis is often delayed, particularly among men without regular primary health care.

gisele/Getty Images

SOURCE: Osorio M et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6867.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Adhering to antimalarial treatment offers some protection to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), according to new research.

Patients who took at least 90% of their prescribed antimalarial doses were 39% less likely to develop T2DM than patients who discontinued antimalarial therapy. Patients who took less than 90% of their prescribed doses but didn’t discontinue treatment were 22% less likely to develop T2DM.

“[O]ur study provides further support for the importance of adherence to antimalarials in SLE by demonstrating protective impacts on T2DM,” Shahrzad Salmasi, PhD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and colleagues wrote in Arthritis Care & Research.

Dr. Salmasi and colleagues conducted this retrospective study using administrative health data on patients in British Columbia. The researchers analyzed 1,498 patients with SLE. Their mean age was about 44 years, and 91% were women.

The researchers used data on prescription dates and days’ supply to establish antimalarial drug courses and gaps in treatment. A new treatment course occurred when a 90-day gap was exceeded between refills. The researchers calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) – the total number of days with antimalarials divided by the length of the course – and separated patients into three categories:

• Adherent to treatment – PDC of 0.90 or greater
• Nonadherent – PDC greater than 0 but less than 0.90
• Discontinuer – PDC of 0

The patients had a mean of about 23 antimalarial prescriptions and a mean of about two courses. The mean course duration was 554 days.

At a median follow-up of 4.6 years, there were 140 incident cases of T2DM. The researchers calculated the risk of T2DM among adherent and nonadherent patients, comparing these groups with the discontinuers and adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and concomitant medications.

The adjusted hazard ratio for developing T2DM was 0.61 among adherent patients and 0.78 among nonadherent patients.

“This population-based study highlighted that taking less than 90% of the prescribed antimalarials compromises their effect in preventing T2DM in SLE patients,” Dr. Salmasi and colleagues wrote. “Our findings should be used to emphasize the importance of medication adherence in not only treating SLE but also preventing its complications.”

The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Salmasi S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/acr.24147.

Young people treated with bariatric surgery for severe obesity did not experience better mental health in the 5 years following their procedures, Swedish researchers said, and indeed fared worse than their nontreated peers on certain measures.

The results of this study do not necessarily argue “that metabolic and bariatric surgery during adolescence causes mental health problems,” the investigators wrote in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, but “it is reasonable to conclude that metabolic and bariatric surgery does not result in a substantial alleviation of mental health problems in adolescents with severe obesity,” and that “long-term mental health support should be required in programs providing adolescent metabolic and bariatric surgery.”

Kajsa Järvholm, PhD, of Skåne University Hospital, in Malmö, Sweden, and colleagues reported results from a prospective nonrandomized study that recruited 81 adolescents in Sweden aged 13-18 years (mean age, 16.5) who had a body mass index of 40 or higher, or BMI of 35 with obesity-related comorbidities and who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for weight loss. Subjects were matched by age, sex, and BMI to 80 controls (mean age, 15.8 years) who were assigned to conventional nonsurgical treatment. All patients were assessed at 1, 2, and 5 years.

Although mental health treatment, including use of psychiatric drugs, did not differ between the groups at baseline, during the follow-up period the subjects who underwent surgery saw 15% more impatient and outpatient mental health treatment, compared with controls, a significant difference. About a quarter of patients in the surgically treated group required specialized mental health treatment for the first time after their surgeries.

Though the surgical group lost much more weight – mean BMI was 32.3 at 5 years, compared with 41.7 for controls – none of the mental health changes from baseline were significantly associated with percentage change of BMI at 5 years.

The findings from the study are consistent with results from studies in adults in which bariatric surgery improves many health outcomes but does not alter the need for mental health treatment. Although 5 years is a longer follow-up than in previous studies in young patients – a key strength of the study – Dr. Järvholm and colleagues acknowledged some weaknesses, including a nonrandomized design, lack of a comparison group of nonobese youths for mental health measures, a small sample size, and a surgical procedure that is now out of favor in adolescents.

The study was funded by Swedish government and health foundations. Dr. Järvholm disclosed pharmaceutical industry funding not related to the study, and three coauthors also disclosed industry relationships.

SOURCE: Järvholm K et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020. doi: 10.1016/s2352-4642(20)30024-9.

Young people treated with bariatric surgery for severe obesity did not experience better mental health in the 5 years following their procedures, Swedish researchers said, and indeed fared worse than their nontreated peers on certain measures.

The results of this study do not necessarily argue “that metabolic and bariatric surgery during adolescence causes mental health problems,” the investigators wrote in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, but “it is reasonable to conclude that metabolic and bariatric surgery does not result in a substantial alleviation of mental health problems in adolescents with severe obesity,” and that “long-term mental health support should be required in programs providing adolescent metabolic and bariatric surgery.”

Kajsa Järvholm, PhD, of Skåne University Hospital, in Malmö, Sweden, and colleagues reported results from a prospective nonrandomized study that recruited 81 adolescents in Sweden aged 13-18 years (mean age, 16.5) who had a body mass index of 40 or higher, or BMI of 35 with obesity-related comorbidities and who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for weight loss. Subjects were matched by age, sex, and BMI to 80 controls (mean age, 15.8 years) who were assigned to conventional nonsurgical treatment. All patients were assessed at 1, 2, and 5 years.

Although mental health treatment, including use of psychiatric drugs, did not differ between the groups at baseline, during the follow-up period the subjects who underwent surgery saw 15% more impatient and outpatient mental health treatment, compared with controls, a significant difference. About a quarter of patients in the surgically treated group required specialized mental health treatment for the first time after their surgeries.

Though the surgical group lost much more weight – mean BMI was 32.3 at 5 years, compared with 41.7 for controls – none of the mental health changes from baseline were significantly associated with percentage change of BMI at 5 years.

The findings from the study are consistent with results from studies in adults in which bariatric surgery improves many health outcomes but does not alter the need for mental health treatment. Although 5 years is a longer follow-up than in previous studies in young patients – a key strength of the study – Dr. Järvholm and colleagues acknowledged some weaknesses, including a nonrandomized design, lack of a comparison group of nonobese youths for mental health measures, a small sample size, and a surgical procedure that is now out of favor in adolescents.

The study was funded by Swedish government and health foundations. Dr. Järvholm disclosed pharmaceutical industry funding not related to the study, and three coauthors also disclosed industry relationships.

SOURCE: Järvholm K et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020. doi: 10.1016/s2352-4642(20)30024-9.

Young people treated with bariatric surgery for severe obesity did not experience better mental health in the 5 years following their procedures, Swedish researchers said, and indeed fared worse than their nontreated peers on certain measures.

The results of this study do not necessarily argue “that metabolic and bariatric surgery during adolescence causes mental health problems,” the investigators wrote in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, but “it is reasonable to conclude that metabolic and bariatric surgery does not result in a substantial alleviation of mental health problems in adolescents with severe obesity,” and that “long-term mental health support should be required in programs providing adolescent metabolic and bariatric surgery.”

Kajsa Järvholm, PhD, of Skåne University Hospital, in Malmö, Sweden, and colleagues reported results from a prospective nonrandomized study that recruited 81 adolescents in Sweden aged 13-18 years (mean age, 16.5) who had a body mass index of 40 or higher, or BMI of 35 with obesity-related comorbidities and who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for weight loss. Subjects were matched by age, sex, and BMI to 80 controls (mean age, 15.8 years) who were assigned to conventional nonsurgical treatment. All patients were assessed at 1, 2, and 5 years.

Although mental health treatment, including use of psychiatric drugs, did not differ between the groups at baseline, during the follow-up period the subjects who underwent surgery saw 15% more impatient and outpatient mental health treatment, compared with controls, a significant difference. About a quarter of patients in the surgically treated group required specialized mental health treatment for the first time after their surgeries.

Though the surgical group lost much more weight – mean BMI was 32.3 at 5 years, compared with 41.7 for controls – none of the mental health changes from baseline were significantly associated with percentage change of BMI at 5 years.

The findings from the study are consistent with results from studies in adults in which bariatric surgery improves many health outcomes but does not alter the need for mental health treatment. Although 5 years is a longer follow-up than in previous studies in young patients – a key strength of the study – Dr. Järvholm and colleagues acknowledged some weaknesses, including a nonrandomized design, lack of a comparison group of nonobese youths for mental health measures, a small sample size, and a surgical procedure that is now out of favor in adolescents.

The study was funded by Swedish government and health foundations. Dr. Järvholm disclosed pharmaceutical industry funding not related to the study, and three coauthors also disclosed industry relationships.

SOURCE: Järvholm K et al. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020. doi: 10.1016/s2352-4642(20)30024-9.

Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.

Stuart Jenner/Thinkstock

Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.

The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.

“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.

Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.

For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.

The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.

“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.

Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.

Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.

The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.

Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.

After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.

Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.

Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.

Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.

Stuart Jenner/Thinkstock

Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.

The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.

“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.

Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.

For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.

The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.

“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.

Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.

Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.

The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.

Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.

After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.

Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.

Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.

Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.

Stuart Jenner/Thinkstock

Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.

The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.

“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.

Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.

For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.

The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.

“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.

Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.

Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.

The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.

Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.

After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.

Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.

Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.

The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.

The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.

The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.

Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”

The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.

Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.

In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.

The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.

“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”

Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”

He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.

Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.

“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.

“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
 

No price change foreseen

Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.

Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.

“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.

“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”

Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.

“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
 

Some still unsure

But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.

One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.

“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.

“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.

However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.

The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.

The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.

Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”

The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.

Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.

In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.

The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.

“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”

Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”

He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.

Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.

“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.

“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
 

No price change foreseen

Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.

Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.

“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.

“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”

Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.

“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
 

Some still unsure

But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.

One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.

“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.

“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.

However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The newly approved U.S. indication for icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) is broadly in line with the entry criteria for the REDUCE-IT trial and includes a large high-risk primary-prevention population, as well as those with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). The drug, thus, could well be used by millions of patients in the United States alone.

The high-dose, purified eicosapentaenoic acid product was approved last week by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiovascular risk reduction among adults already taking maximally tolerated statins with triglyceride levels of 150 mg/dL or higher who have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional risk factors for CVD.

The approval is based largely on the REDUCE-IT trial’s finding of a 25% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events versus placebo. The FDA stated that the approval is the first for an agent with this specific indication.

Noting that it recognizes the need for additional medical treatments for CVD, the FDA says the new approval “will give patients with elevated triglycerides and other important risk factors, including heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, an adjunctive treatment option that can help decrease their risk of cardiovascular events.”

The drug was unanimously recommended for approval by the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee last month. But while the committee all agreed on its use in patients with established CVD, which made up 70% of the REDUCE-IT population, they were divided on whether the indication should be extended to the high-risk primary-prevention population, who made up just 30% of patients in the study.

Nonetheless, the FDA has gone for a broad indication based on the whole REDUCE-IT population.

In a conference call following the approval, Steven Ketchum, PhD, chief scientific officer at Amarin, pointed out that the primary-prevention population stipulated in the new approval differed very slightly from the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria.

The trial specified that patients with diabetes should be older than 50 with one other cardiovascular risk factor, whereas the approved population is for diabetes and two cardiovascular risk factors. But as these two risk factors are not specified, they could include age, cigarette smoking, hypertension or use of an antihypertensive agent, low HDL cholesterol, high C-reactive protein, body mass index above 25 kg/m2, renal dysfunction, retinopathy, albuminuria, or an ankle branchial index below 0.9, Dr. Ketchum said.

“So while the label asks for two other risk factors, one of these could be age; so we believe the label is actually slightly broader than the REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria, and doctors have been left with significant leeway to decide which risk factors to consider on top of diabetes.”

Deepak Bhatt, MD, the lead investigator of REDUCE-IT, described the Vascepa approval as “the most significant event in the field of cardiovascular prevention since the introduction of statins nearly 3 decades ago.”

He commended the FDA on “a very evidence-based, prescriber-friendly, and most importantly, patient-friendly label,” which he said was in line with guidelines from multiple professional societies that have already incorporated the REDUCE-IT findings for secondary prevention and diabetic primary prevention.

Dr. Bhatt, who is a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the label essentially matches the REDUCE-IT population.

“The entry criteria for REDUCE-IT was fasting triglycerides greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL, with a 10% variance allowed (giving a minimum triglyceride value of 135 mg/dL). In actuality, we ended up with about 10% of the population with triglycerides between 100 and 150 mg/dL, and they had a similar degree of benefit as those with higher levels,” he reported.

“In the label, the 150 mg/dL does not specify fasting, and in fact many practices have moved away from fasting lipid measurements for the sake of patient comfort,” Dr. Bhatt added. “On average, nonfasting levels are about 50 mg/dL higher, so the label essentially mirrors those we studied, with the FDA applying good common sense and not being overly dogmatic about the exact wording of the trial inclusion criteria.”
 

No price change foreseen

Vascepa is already on the market for patients with very high triglyceride levels, and the company says it is not increasing the current price of about $300 a month, which is “relatively low, compared to other new breakthrough drugs.” However, it says it expects sales to grow from vastly increased volume based on the new indication.

Dr. Bhatt noted that REDUCE-IT cost-effectiveness data presented at the recent American Heart Association scientific sessions found the drug to be cost saving in the majority of cases. “That is something that is quite rare in cost-effectiveness research,” he said.

“Now, the key challenge is to identify and treat appropriate patients,” Dr. Bhatt noted. He says this task will largely fall on cardiologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians, though stroke neurologists, nephrologists, and vascular medicine specialists will also have patients for whom the data are relevant.

“I believe the drug will ultimately be widely prescribed, initially by subspecialists, but by primary care physicians also. It is overall very well tolerated, safe, and easy to use,” he said. “Much like statin prescription started in subspecialty practices but then became quite common in primary care, I envision the same happening with icosapent ethyl.”

Lipid expert Roger Blumenthal, MD, who was not involved in the REDUCE-IT trial, also welcomed the new approval for Vascepa.

“The indication is very appropriate; it is great to have another disease-modifying medication in our prevention toolkit,” Dr. Blumenthal, who is director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Baltimore, said in an interview.
 

Some still unsure

But not everyone is in full agreement with the broad indication granted.

One expert who has reservations is James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas, who sat on the FDA advisory committee that assessed the drug last month.

“I would have preferred a narrower label for now, limited to the secondary prevention indication, because I felt that REDUCE-IT did not include sufficient numbers of patients to justify the high-risk primary-prevention indication. We need an adequately powered, randomized, controlled trial to establish the risk/benefit and cost/benefit in primary prevention, and with this broad label, I worry there will be little incentive for the company to pursue this,” Dr. de Lemos commented in an interview.

“This is a slippery slope, and we should not allow broad indications that extend to primary prevention for drugs that were studied in mixed secondary- and primary-prevention patients, with the results driven by the secondary-prevention subset. These two subgroups are fundamentally different populations in whom the pathophysiology and the background treatments are very different,” he added.

However, Dr. de Lemos acknowledged that he would use Vascepa for some high-risk primary-prevention patients in his practice – those with diabetes, high triglycerides, and multiple risk factors. “I just wish we had more data coming so that I could be more certain of the benefit in this group,” he said.

Dr. Bhatt disclosed sitting on advisory boards for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences; conducting unfunded research in association with FlowCo, Fractyl, Merck, Novo Nordisk, PLx Pharma, and Takeda; and receiving research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Forest Laboratories. Dr. De Lemos reported receiving grant and consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and Abbott Diagnostics; and consulting for Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. Dr. Blumenthal has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reducing the cost of insulin – and other high-priced medications – in the United States will require a concerted effort involving multiple changes to the current convoluted drug pricing system, Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, argues in a new commentary.

The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action was published in the January 2020 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who specializes in treating myeloma and, more recently, has become an expert in drug pricing.

He also presented the information in a YouTube video.

As has been widely reported and examined by Congress in the past few years, the cost of insulin in the United States has risen at a far higher rate than inflation. For example, the list price of a single vial of Humalog jumped from $21 in 1999 to $275 in 2019, a far higher price than anywhere else in the world.

Stories of one in four patients having to ration their insulin use because of cost, and of some dying, have fueled protests, leading to legislative efforts and to a few initiatives by some of the manufacturers to address the cost problem.

Collective advocacy

Much of the blame has been placed on the manufacturers for charging such high prices and on the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – also known as “middlemen” – for incentivizing higher-priced products on formularies through rebates. Those are major factors, Dr. Rajkumar argues, but they are not the only ones.

“There is no one reason why this is happening, and no one solution. It’s very complicated. It’s multiple factors all playing together. The only way to tackle it is to really understand it 360,” he said in an interview.

This is true of drug prices overall in the United States, but insulin is a special case. The current analog formulations have not changed in more than 20 years, yet only in the past 5 years have a handful of biosimilar and generic versions started to appear from the same manufacturers as the branded products.

“Insulin is a window into what’s wrong with the pharma industry. ... It’s the best example of how the system is broken,” Dr. Rajkumar stressed.

Physicians can help ease the problem, he said, by becoming educated about drug prices, taking cost into account when prescribing, and routinely discussing prescription drug affordability with patients.

Resources such as www.goodrx.com and www.blinkhealth.com provide information about drug prices and pharmacies that offer drugs at the lowest prices.

“Doctors need to not be suspicious of biosimilars and generics,” he emphasized.  

Physicians can also advocate for policies that will lower insulin prices, and their institutions can establish preferences for lower-cost biosimilars in formularies.

“Our individual and collective advocacy gives voice to the needs of our patients,” Dr. Rajkumar emphasized.
 

‘Everyone in the supply chain benefits’

In his commentary, Dr. Rajkumar lists six major reasons for the high cost of insulin:

1. People with type 1 diabetes are a “vulnerable population” who will die without insulin and are therefore willing to pay a high price to stay alive.

2. Just three manufacturers – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis – control nearly the entire insulin market in the United States, with no regulations to cap or control the prices they can charge.

3. The manufacturers continually file new patents for existing insulin products – 70 in the case of Lantus, for example – that provide additional years of monopoly protection from competition.

4. Although the Food and Drug Administration has been receptive to approving insulin biosimilars, it still requires manufacturers to go through a long and cumbersome process to obtain licensure, sometimes taking as long as 10 years.

5.PBMs, paid by insurance companies to negotiate prices with retail pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies (through rebates), stand to benefit from higher, not lower, list prices.

6. Pharmaceutical companies have vast lobbying power.

In regard to the fifth point, about PBMs, Dr. Rajkumar said, “It’s not just the PBMs – it’s the whole supply chain. It’s hard to put a finger on the source of the problem. There’s no transparency in any of the arrangements for you to know why only certain drugs are on a given formulary of an insurance company or PBM. But we do know that, in general, the whole supply chain benefits from the higher list price. Everyone.”
 

‘Authorized generic’ insulins

That is why Dr. Rajkumar is not convinced that Eli Lilly’s recent launch of half-priced “authorized generic” insulins – first the Lispro injection in March 2019, and then two combination pen products in January 2020 – or Novo Nordisk’s My$99Insulin program and “follow-on” authorized generic versions of Novolog and NovoLog Mix, launched Jan. 2, 2020, will have a huge impact.

“It’s common sense. If Apple made the same iPhone for two different prices, who would pay the full price? It gives you a window into asking what is wrong with the system that allows that? To pay for the higher-priced product, somebody is being paid,” he said.

Indeed, in December 2019, the offices of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued a report from a survey of 400 pharmacies nationwide that found that 83% of the less expensive authorized generic Insulin Lispro was not in stock.

More than two-thirds of pharmacies reported they could not order the product.

“Eli Lilly has failed to take consequential steps – such as simply lowering the list price of Humalog, as it has in foreign markets – to provide lower-cost access to this important diabetes drug,” according to the senators’ report, which concludes by urging Eli Lilly to lower the list price of its insulin and calling for Congress to take steps to enact systemic change to reduce drug prices nationwide.

Asked for comment, Dani Barnhizer, Eli Lilly’s manager of global diabetes communications, said, “Like Senators Warren and Blumenthal, Lilly would like to see even broader use of Insulin Lispro injection because it’s a real solution that can lower copays for people living with diabetes.”

“But the Senators’ paper failed to identify the system challenges that have inhibited access to this lower list price product,” Ms. Barnhizer said. “Payers determine an individual’s premiums and copays, which are subsidized by rebates that pharmaceutical companies pay. And many payers prioritize these rebates to lower premiums instead of offering low copays for chronic medications such as insulin.

“It’s why only one in four people using Medicare Part D, and one in five with commercial plans, have coverage for Insulin Lispro injection. That will not change until payers prioritize providing consistent, affordable insulin copays,” she added.

However, Ms. Barnhizer also noted, “It is not unusual for pharmacies to not stock a medicine. Any pharmacy can place an order for Insulin Lispro injection, with delivery in 1-2 days. All major U.S. wholesalers are now distributing Insulin Lispro injection.”

She also said that people who earn 400% or less of the federal poverty level may be eligible for free insulin, and that Lilly can provide free insulin to anyone in emergency situations. (Novo Nordisk offers that as well.)

Asked why Lilly does not simply lower the price of all their insulins, Ms. Barnhizer responded: “Cutting the list prices would significantly disrupt access to branded insulins, which thousands of insured patients depend on. Launching lower-priced insulin options is a less disruptive approach to help reduce the amount people pay at the pharmacy for people who need the help.”
 

Government role needed

In addition to the recommendations for physicians and their institutions, Dr. Rajkumar listed several potential policy-level solutions:

1. At the state and federal level, regulations should protect against excessive drug launch prices through the same type of value-based pricing approaches used in other developed countries. “Capping the maximum price increases to the rate of inflation is needed and can happen only through state and/or federal legislation,” he wrote.

Although some may see this as antithetical to “free market” economics, Dr. Rajkumar points out that, in the case of many prescription drugs, including insulin, “we not only have an unregulated monopoly, but it’s a prolonged unregulated monopoly for a lifesaving product, not a luxury item.”

“When you grant monopoly protection and put a barrier on competition, that’s not a free market. People have always had regulations on monopolies. Unregulated monopoly is a recipe for high prices. You have to have some regulation that protects citizens from exploitation.”

And here, he believes, the United States could adopt price negotiations as practiced in Europe and other parts of the world, but which are currently forbidden in the United States. 

“Other countries negotiate the price in exchange for monopoly protection. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” he said.

2. Reform of the regulatory and legal processes to ease the path for approval of generics and biosimilars to enter the market. This could include reciprocal approval so that biosimilars approved in Canada or the European Union could automatically be granted FDA approval in the United States.

3. Reform of the patent system to prevent overpatenting and patent abuse, by capping patent life to 7-10 years and forbidding use of additional patents as a way of prolonging market exclusivity.

To this point, Barnhizer pointed out that “none of the Lilly insulins are patent protected. Our most commonly used insulin, Humalog U-100, lost patent protection in 2014.”

4. A nongovernmental agency should oversee pricing and make recommendations to Medicare and insurers on the maximum price of new and existing drugs, including insulin. One body poised to do that work is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives 77% of its funding from nonprofit foundations. “I have worked with them and they are the best there is,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

5. Any rebates paid by manufacturers to PBMs should be transparent to all stakeholders, including patients.

6. Nonprofit generic manufacturing should be established. The Mayo Clinic has recently partnered with Intermountain Healthcare and several other organizations in creating Civica Rx, a nonprofit generic company.

7. Measures and laws that provide access to insulin in emergency situations are needed, particularly for people with type 1 diabetes.

Recent proposed and enacted legislation has been aimed at some of these goals.

The Insulin Price Reduction Act, introduced in October 2019 and just endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, would reduce insulin costs by providing incentives for manufacturers to revert to the 2006 list price of all insulins.

The Affordable Insulin Approvals Now Act, introduced in July 2019, aims to speed up approvals of generic and biosimilar insulins.

And in May 2019, the state of Colorado passed a bill to cap patient copays for insulin at $100 a month, and similar legislation has been introduced in several other states.

Dr. Rajkumar says that an overall fix will require changes at the federal level.

But, he said, they do not need to happen all at once.

“There are a number of changes that need to happen, but we can do one legislation at a time. ... I’m optimistic that something will happen. This is a national conversation. Both sides of the aisle want to do something about it. People are indeed feeling the pinch, so maybe something will get done,” he said.

Dr. Rajkumar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reducing the cost of insulin – and other high-priced medications – in the United States will require a concerted effort involving multiple changes to the current convoluted drug pricing system, Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, argues in a new commentary.

The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action was published in the January 2020 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who specializes in treating myeloma and, more recently, has become an expert in drug pricing.

He also presented the information in a YouTube video.

As has been widely reported and examined by Congress in the past few years, the cost of insulin in the United States has risen at a far higher rate than inflation. For example, the list price of a single vial of Humalog jumped from $21 in 1999 to $275 in 2019, a far higher price than anywhere else in the world.

Stories of one in four patients having to ration their insulin use because of cost, and of some dying, have fueled protests, leading to legislative efforts and to a few initiatives by some of the manufacturers to address the cost problem.

Collective advocacy

Much of the blame has been placed on the manufacturers for charging such high prices and on the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – also known as “middlemen” – for incentivizing higher-priced products on formularies through rebates. Those are major factors, Dr. Rajkumar argues, but they are not the only ones.

“There is no one reason why this is happening, and no one solution. It’s very complicated. It’s multiple factors all playing together. The only way to tackle it is to really understand it 360,” he said in an interview.

This is true of drug prices overall in the United States, but insulin is a special case. The current analog formulations have not changed in more than 20 years, yet only in the past 5 years have a handful of biosimilar and generic versions started to appear from the same manufacturers as the branded products.

“Insulin is a window into what’s wrong with the pharma industry. ... It’s the best example of how the system is broken,” Dr. Rajkumar stressed.

Physicians can help ease the problem, he said, by becoming educated about drug prices, taking cost into account when prescribing, and routinely discussing prescription drug affordability with patients.

Resources such as www.goodrx.com and www.blinkhealth.com provide information about drug prices and pharmacies that offer drugs at the lowest prices.

“Doctors need to not be suspicious of biosimilars and generics,” he emphasized.  

Physicians can also advocate for policies that will lower insulin prices, and their institutions can establish preferences for lower-cost biosimilars in formularies.

“Our individual and collective advocacy gives voice to the needs of our patients,” Dr. Rajkumar emphasized.
 

‘Everyone in the supply chain benefits’

In his commentary, Dr. Rajkumar lists six major reasons for the high cost of insulin:

1. People with type 1 diabetes are a “vulnerable population” who will die without insulin and are therefore willing to pay a high price to stay alive.

2. Just three manufacturers – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis – control nearly the entire insulin market in the United States, with no regulations to cap or control the prices they can charge.

3. The manufacturers continually file new patents for existing insulin products – 70 in the case of Lantus, for example – that provide additional years of monopoly protection from competition.

4. Although the Food and Drug Administration has been receptive to approving insulin biosimilars, it still requires manufacturers to go through a long and cumbersome process to obtain licensure, sometimes taking as long as 10 years.

5.PBMs, paid by insurance companies to negotiate prices with retail pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies (through rebates), stand to benefit from higher, not lower, list prices.

6. Pharmaceutical companies have vast lobbying power.

In regard to the fifth point, about PBMs, Dr. Rajkumar said, “It’s not just the PBMs – it’s the whole supply chain. It’s hard to put a finger on the source of the problem. There’s no transparency in any of the arrangements for you to know why only certain drugs are on a given formulary of an insurance company or PBM. But we do know that, in general, the whole supply chain benefits from the higher list price. Everyone.”
 

‘Authorized generic’ insulins

That is why Dr. Rajkumar is not convinced that Eli Lilly’s recent launch of half-priced “authorized generic” insulins – first the Lispro injection in March 2019, and then two combination pen products in January 2020 – or Novo Nordisk’s My$99Insulin program and “follow-on” authorized generic versions of Novolog and NovoLog Mix, launched Jan. 2, 2020, will have a huge impact.

“It’s common sense. If Apple made the same iPhone for two different prices, who would pay the full price? It gives you a window into asking what is wrong with the system that allows that? To pay for the higher-priced product, somebody is being paid,” he said.

Indeed, in December 2019, the offices of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued a report from a survey of 400 pharmacies nationwide that found that 83% of the less expensive authorized generic Insulin Lispro was not in stock.

More than two-thirds of pharmacies reported they could not order the product.

“Eli Lilly has failed to take consequential steps – such as simply lowering the list price of Humalog, as it has in foreign markets – to provide lower-cost access to this important diabetes drug,” according to the senators’ report, which concludes by urging Eli Lilly to lower the list price of its insulin and calling for Congress to take steps to enact systemic change to reduce drug prices nationwide.

Asked for comment, Dani Barnhizer, Eli Lilly’s manager of global diabetes communications, said, “Like Senators Warren and Blumenthal, Lilly would like to see even broader use of Insulin Lispro injection because it’s a real solution that can lower copays for people living with diabetes.”

“But the Senators’ paper failed to identify the system challenges that have inhibited access to this lower list price product,” Ms. Barnhizer said. “Payers determine an individual’s premiums and copays, which are subsidized by rebates that pharmaceutical companies pay. And many payers prioritize these rebates to lower premiums instead of offering low copays for chronic medications such as insulin.

“It’s why only one in four people using Medicare Part D, and one in five with commercial plans, have coverage for Insulin Lispro injection. That will not change until payers prioritize providing consistent, affordable insulin copays,” she added.

However, Ms. Barnhizer also noted, “It is not unusual for pharmacies to not stock a medicine. Any pharmacy can place an order for Insulin Lispro injection, with delivery in 1-2 days. All major U.S. wholesalers are now distributing Insulin Lispro injection.”

She also said that people who earn 400% or less of the federal poverty level may be eligible for free insulin, and that Lilly can provide free insulin to anyone in emergency situations. (Novo Nordisk offers that as well.)

Asked why Lilly does not simply lower the price of all their insulins, Ms. Barnhizer responded: “Cutting the list prices would significantly disrupt access to branded insulins, which thousands of insured patients depend on. Launching lower-priced insulin options is a less disruptive approach to help reduce the amount people pay at the pharmacy for people who need the help.”
 

Government role needed

In addition to the recommendations for physicians and their institutions, Dr. Rajkumar listed several potential policy-level solutions:

1. At the state and federal level, regulations should protect against excessive drug launch prices through the same type of value-based pricing approaches used in other developed countries. “Capping the maximum price increases to the rate of inflation is needed and can happen only through state and/or federal legislation,” he wrote.

Although some may see this as antithetical to “free market” economics, Dr. Rajkumar points out that, in the case of many prescription drugs, including insulin, “we not only have an unregulated monopoly, but it’s a prolonged unregulated monopoly for a lifesaving product, not a luxury item.”

“When you grant monopoly protection and put a barrier on competition, that’s not a free market. People have always had regulations on monopolies. Unregulated monopoly is a recipe for high prices. You have to have some regulation that protects citizens from exploitation.”

And here, he believes, the United States could adopt price negotiations as practiced in Europe and other parts of the world, but which are currently forbidden in the United States. 

“Other countries negotiate the price in exchange for monopoly protection. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” he said.

2. Reform of the regulatory and legal processes to ease the path for approval of generics and biosimilars to enter the market. This could include reciprocal approval so that biosimilars approved in Canada or the European Union could automatically be granted FDA approval in the United States.

3. Reform of the patent system to prevent overpatenting and patent abuse, by capping patent life to 7-10 years and forbidding use of additional patents as a way of prolonging market exclusivity.

To this point, Barnhizer pointed out that “none of the Lilly insulins are patent protected. Our most commonly used insulin, Humalog U-100, lost patent protection in 2014.”

4. A nongovernmental agency should oversee pricing and make recommendations to Medicare and insurers on the maximum price of new and existing drugs, including insulin. One body poised to do that work is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives 77% of its funding from nonprofit foundations. “I have worked with them and they are the best there is,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

5. Any rebates paid by manufacturers to PBMs should be transparent to all stakeholders, including patients.

6. Nonprofit generic manufacturing should be established. The Mayo Clinic has recently partnered with Intermountain Healthcare and several other organizations in creating Civica Rx, a nonprofit generic company.

7. Measures and laws that provide access to insulin in emergency situations are needed, particularly for people with type 1 diabetes.

Recent proposed and enacted legislation has been aimed at some of these goals.

The Insulin Price Reduction Act, introduced in October 2019 and just endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, would reduce insulin costs by providing incentives for manufacturers to revert to the 2006 list price of all insulins.

The Affordable Insulin Approvals Now Act, introduced in July 2019, aims to speed up approvals of generic and biosimilar insulins.

And in May 2019, the state of Colorado passed a bill to cap patient copays for insulin at $100 a month, and similar legislation has been introduced in several other states.

Dr. Rajkumar says that an overall fix will require changes at the federal level.

But, he said, they do not need to happen all at once.

“There are a number of changes that need to happen, but we can do one legislation at a time. ... I’m optimistic that something will happen. This is a national conversation. Both sides of the aisle want to do something about it. People are indeed feeling the pinch, so maybe something will get done,” he said.

Dr. Rajkumar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Reducing the cost of insulin – and other high-priced medications – in the United States will require a concerted effort involving multiple changes to the current convoluted drug pricing system, Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD, argues in a new commentary.

The High Cost of Insulin in the United States: An Urgent Call to Action was published in the January 2020 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings by Dr. Rajkumar, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who specializes in treating myeloma and, more recently, has become an expert in drug pricing.

He also presented the information in a YouTube video.

As has been widely reported and examined by Congress in the past few years, the cost of insulin in the United States has risen at a far higher rate than inflation. For example, the list price of a single vial of Humalog jumped from $21 in 1999 to $275 in 2019, a far higher price than anywhere else in the world.

Stories of one in four patients having to ration their insulin use because of cost, and of some dying, have fueled protests, leading to legislative efforts and to a few initiatives by some of the manufacturers to address the cost problem.

Collective advocacy

Much of the blame has been placed on the manufacturers for charging such high prices and on the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) – also known as “middlemen” – for incentivizing higher-priced products on formularies through rebates. Those are major factors, Dr. Rajkumar argues, but they are not the only ones.

“There is no one reason why this is happening, and no one solution. It’s very complicated. It’s multiple factors all playing together. The only way to tackle it is to really understand it 360,” he said in an interview.

This is true of drug prices overall in the United States, but insulin is a special case. The current analog formulations have not changed in more than 20 years, yet only in the past 5 years have a handful of biosimilar and generic versions started to appear from the same manufacturers as the branded products.

“Insulin is a window into what’s wrong with the pharma industry. ... It’s the best example of how the system is broken,” Dr. Rajkumar stressed.

Physicians can help ease the problem, he said, by becoming educated about drug prices, taking cost into account when prescribing, and routinely discussing prescription drug affordability with patients.

Resources such as www.goodrx.com and www.blinkhealth.com provide information about drug prices and pharmacies that offer drugs at the lowest prices.

“Doctors need to not be suspicious of biosimilars and generics,” he emphasized.  

Physicians can also advocate for policies that will lower insulin prices, and their institutions can establish preferences for lower-cost biosimilars in formularies.

“Our individual and collective advocacy gives voice to the needs of our patients,” Dr. Rajkumar emphasized.
 

‘Everyone in the supply chain benefits’

In his commentary, Dr. Rajkumar lists six major reasons for the high cost of insulin:

1. People with type 1 diabetes are a “vulnerable population” who will die without insulin and are therefore willing to pay a high price to stay alive.

2. Just three manufacturers – Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis – control nearly the entire insulin market in the United States, with no regulations to cap or control the prices they can charge.

3. The manufacturers continually file new patents for existing insulin products – 70 in the case of Lantus, for example – that provide additional years of monopoly protection from competition.

4. Although the Food and Drug Administration has been receptive to approving insulin biosimilars, it still requires manufacturers to go through a long and cumbersome process to obtain licensure, sometimes taking as long as 10 years.

5.PBMs, paid by insurance companies to negotiate prices with retail pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies (through rebates), stand to benefit from higher, not lower, list prices.

6. Pharmaceutical companies have vast lobbying power.

In regard to the fifth point, about PBMs, Dr. Rajkumar said, “It’s not just the PBMs – it’s the whole supply chain. It’s hard to put a finger on the source of the problem. There’s no transparency in any of the arrangements for you to know why only certain drugs are on a given formulary of an insurance company or PBM. But we do know that, in general, the whole supply chain benefits from the higher list price. Everyone.”
 

‘Authorized generic’ insulins

That is why Dr. Rajkumar is not convinced that Eli Lilly’s recent launch of half-priced “authorized generic” insulins – first the Lispro injection in March 2019, and then two combination pen products in January 2020 – or Novo Nordisk’s My$99Insulin program and “follow-on” authorized generic versions of Novolog and NovoLog Mix, launched Jan. 2, 2020, will have a huge impact.

“It’s common sense. If Apple made the same iPhone for two different prices, who would pay the full price? It gives you a window into asking what is wrong with the system that allows that? To pay for the higher-priced product, somebody is being paid,” he said.

Indeed, in December 2019, the offices of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) issued a report from a survey of 400 pharmacies nationwide that found that 83% of the less expensive authorized generic Insulin Lispro was not in stock.

More than two-thirds of pharmacies reported they could not order the product.

“Eli Lilly has failed to take consequential steps – such as simply lowering the list price of Humalog, as it has in foreign markets – to provide lower-cost access to this important diabetes drug,” according to the senators’ report, which concludes by urging Eli Lilly to lower the list price of its insulin and calling for Congress to take steps to enact systemic change to reduce drug prices nationwide.

Asked for comment, Dani Barnhizer, Eli Lilly’s manager of global diabetes communications, said, “Like Senators Warren and Blumenthal, Lilly would like to see even broader use of Insulin Lispro injection because it’s a real solution that can lower copays for people living with diabetes.”

“But the Senators’ paper failed to identify the system challenges that have inhibited access to this lower list price product,” Ms. Barnhizer said. “Payers determine an individual’s premiums and copays, which are subsidized by rebates that pharmaceutical companies pay. And many payers prioritize these rebates to lower premiums instead of offering low copays for chronic medications such as insulin.

“It’s why only one in four people using Medicare Part D, and one in five with commercial plans, have coverage for Insulin Lispro injection. That will not change until payers prioritize providing consistent, affordable insulin copays,” she added.

However, Ms. Barnhizer also noted, “It is not unusual for pharmacies to not stock a medicine. Any pharmacy can place an order for Insulin Lispro injection, with delivery in 1-2 days. All major U.S. wholesalers are now distributing Insulin Lispro injection.”

She also said that people who earn 400% or less of the federal poverty level may be eligible for free insulin, and that Lilly can provide free insulin to anyone in emergency situations. (Novo Nordisk offers that as well.)

Asked why Lilly does not simply lower the price of all their insulins, Ms. Barnhizer responded: “Cutting the list prices would significantly disrupt access to branded insulins, which thousands of insured patients depend on. Launching lower-priced insulin options is a less disruptive approach to help reduce the amount people pay at the pharmacy for people who need the help.”
 

Government role needed

In addition to the recommendations for physicians and their institutions, Dr. Rajkumar listed several potential policy-level solutions:

1. At the state and federal level, regulations should protect against excessive drug launch prices through the same type of value-based pricing approaches used in other developed countries. “Capping the maximum price increases to the rate of inflation is needed and can happen only through state and/or federal legislation,” he wrote.

Although some may see this as antithetical to “free market” economics, Dr. Rajkumar points out that, in the case of many prescription drugs, including insulin, “we not only have an unregulated monopoly, but it’s a prolonged unregulated monopoly for a lifesaving product, not a luxury item.”

“When you grant monopoly protection and put a barrier on competition, that’s not a free market. People have always had regulations on monopolies. Unregulated monopoly is a recipe for high prices. You have to have some regulation that protects citizens from exploitation.”

And here, he believes, the United States could adopt price negotiations as practiced in Europe and other parts of the world, but which are currently forbidden in the United States. 

“Other countries negotiate the price in exchange for monopoly protection. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” he said.

2. Reform of the regulatory and legal processes to ease the path for approval of generics and biosimilars to enter the market. This could include reciprocal approval so that biosimilars approved in Canada or the European Union could automatically be granted FDA approval in the United States.

3. Reform of the patent system to prevent overpatenting and patent abuse, by capping patent life to 7-10 years and forbidding use of additional patents as a way of prolonging market exclusivity.

To this point, Barnhizer pointed out that “none of the Lilly insulins are patent protected. Our most commonly used insulin, Humalog U-100, lost patent protection in 2014.”

4. A nongovernmental agency should oversee pricing and make recommendations to Medicare and insurers on the maximum price of new and existing drugs, including insulin. One body poised to do that work is the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which receives 77% of its funding from nonprofit foundations. “I have worked with them and they are the best there is,” Dr. Rajkumar said.

5. Any rebates paid by manufacturers to PBMs should be transparent to all stakeholders, including patients.

6. Nonprofit generic manufacturing should be established. The Mayo Clinic has recently partnered with Intermountain Healthcare and several other organizations in creating Civica Rx, a nonprofit generic company.

7. Measures and laws that provide access to insulin in emergency situations are needed, particularly for people with type 1 diabetes.

Recent proposed and enacted legislation has been aimed at some of these goals.

The Insulin Price Reduction Act, introduced in October 2019 and just endorsed by the American Diabetes Association, would reduce insulin costs by providing incentives for manufacturers to revert to the 2006 list price of all insulins.

The Affordable Insulin Approvals Now Act, introduced in July 2019, aims to speed up approvals of generic and biosimilar insulins.

And in May 2019, the state of Colorado passed a bill to cap patient copays for insulin at $100 a month, and similar legislation has been introduced in several other states.

Dr. Rajkumar says that an overall fix will require changes at the federal level.

But, he said, they do not need to happen all at once.

“There are a number of changes that need to happen, but we can do one legislation at a time. ... I’m optimistic that something will happen. This is a national conversation. Both sides of the aisle want to do something about it. People are indeed feeling the pinch, so maybe something will get done,” he said.

Dr. Rajkumar has reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.

That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”

Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”

Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.

“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.

“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”

During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.

“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”

“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”

The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.

That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”

Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”

Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.

“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.

“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”

During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.

“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”

“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”

The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LA JOLLA, CALIF. – Physicians and other medical professionals who routinely foster empathic connections with patients may be helping themselves steer clear of burnout.

That’s what iconic actor Alan Alda suggested during a media briefing at Scripps Research on Jan. 16, 2020.

Vidyard Video

“There’s a tremendous pressure on doctors now to have shorter and shorter visits with their patients,” said the 83-year-old Mr. Alda, who received the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences in 2016 for his work as a champion of science. “A lot of that time is taken up with recording on a computer, which can only put pressure on the doctor.”

Practicing empathy, he continued, “kind of opens people up to one another, which inspirits them.”

Mr. Alda appeared on the research campus to announce that Scripps Research will serve as the new West Coast home of Alda Communication Training, which will work in tandem with the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University, a nonprofit organization that Mr. Alda helped found in 2009.

“This will be a center where people can come to get training in effective communication,” Mr. Alda, who is the winner of six Emmy Awards and six Golden Globe awards, told an audience of scientists and medical professionals prior to the media briefing.

“It’s an experiential kind of training,” he explained. “We don’t give tips. We don’t give lectures. We put you through exercises that are fun and actually make you laugh, but turn you into a better communicator, so you’re better able to connect to the people you’re talking to.”

During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Alda opened up about his Parkinson’s disease, which he said was diagnosed about 5 years ago. In 2018, he decided to speak publicly about his diagnosis for the first time.

“The reason was that I wanted to communicate to people who had recently been diagnosed not to believe or give into the stereotype that, when you get a diagnosis, your life is over,” said Mr. Alda, who played army surgeon “Hawkeye” Pierce on the TV series “M*A*S*H.”

“Under the burden of that belief, some people won’t tell their family or workplace colleagues,” he said. “There are exercises you can do and medications you can take to prolong the time it takes before Parkinson’s gets much more serious. It’s not to diminish the fact that it can get really bad; but to think that your life is over as soon as you get a diagnosis is wrong.”

The first 2-day training session at Scripps Research will be held in June 2020. Additional sessions are scheduled to take place in October and December. Registration is available at aldacommunicationtraining.com/workshops.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.

“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.

The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.

The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.

The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.

The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.

The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.

The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.

“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.

The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.

The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.

The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.

The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.

The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.

The health consequences of diet don’t largely depend on whether a person eats a high or low level of carbohydrates or a diet high or low in fat. What’s much more important is where the carbs and fats come from, according to an analysis that related diet and mortality rates in more than 37,000 American adults.

“Unhealthy low carbohydrate diet [LCD] and low-fat diet [LFD] scores were associated with higher total mortality, whereas healthy LCD and LFD scores were associated with lower total mortality,” Zhilei Shan, MD, and associates wrote in an article (JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980). The findings “suggest that the association of LCDs and LFDs with mortality may depend on the quality of food sources of macronutrients,” said the researchers, based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

The analysis included follow-up of almost 300,000 person-years. It showed that, for every 20-percentile increase in a person’s unhealthy LCD score, their relative rate of total mortality increased by a statistically significant 7%; and for every 20-percentile rise in unhealthy LFD score, the relative, total mortality rate rose by a statistically significant 6%, after adjustment for several demographic and clinical measures and family and personal histories of diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. In contrast, for each 20-percentile increase in healthy LCD score relative, total mortality fell by 9%, and similar increases in healthy LFD score linked with an 11% relative drop in total mortality, also statistically significant associations in these confounder-adjusted analyses.

The findings “extend the previous evidence” for these links, and the data suggest that “the health benefits of an LCD or LFD may depend not only on the types of protein and fat or carbohydrate but also on the quality of carbohydrate or fat remaining in the diet,” the researchers wrote. They cited the documented health problems caused by eating significant amounts of low-quality carbohydrates such as refined grains and added sugars, which provide limited nutrition and introduce a high glycemic load, and can produce high levels of postprandial glucose and insulin, inflammation, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia.

The foods people ate that produced healthy diet scores and linked with better survival were diets high in plant protein and unsaturated fat, and low in carbohydrates from refined grains, added sugar, starchy vegetables, and similar sources as part of a low carbohydrate diet. The foods that formed a healthy LFD included whole grains, whole fruit, legumes, and nonstarchy vegetables, along with higher intake of plant protein and low levels of saturated fat.

The study used data from 24-hour diet-recall surveys completed by 37,233 American adults collected by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 1999-2014, and linked the diet scores calculated for these people with U.S. national death records collected by the National Death Index through the end of 2015. The people included averaged about 50 years of age at the time of their dietary interview, and 53% were women. During 297,768 person-years of follow-up, 4,866 total deaths occurred, including 849 from heart disease and 1,068 from cancer. The analyses found no statistically significant links between overall LCD or LFD scores and mortality; the significant links only existed when the researchers further classified the diet scores into healthy and unhealthy subtypes.

The results also showed statistically significant links or strong trends between high or low levels of healthy or unhealthy LCD and LFD scores and cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in unhealthy LCD score linked with an 11% relative increase in cancer deaths, while a 20-percentile increase in the healthy LCD score linked with a 10% decrease in cancer deaths. A 20-percentile increase in the healthy LFD score linked with a 15% relative decrease in cancer mortality.

The study received no commercial fundings, and the authors had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Shan Z et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6980.

Risk for preterm birth in women with prepregancy obesity differs significantly by the mother’s age and race/ethnicity, according to new findings from an analysis that used a large, ethnically diverse population sample.

Previous study findings have demonstrated that pregnant women with obesity have a higher risk of giving birth to preterm babies, but the effect of age and race on that risk was not clear until now.

In this latest study, Wei Bao, MD, and colleagues at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, looked at records from 7.14 million live births registered in the U.S. National Vital Statistics System for 2016 and 2017, of which about 7.4% were preterm. The researchers excluded from their sample women with preexisting diabetes or hypertension.

For the cohort overall, there was a significant association between prepregnancy body mass index and preterm birth, with mothers who were overweight (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.03) or obese (aOR, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.18–1.19), having a significantly higher risk of preterm birth, compared with healthy weight mothers. Underweight women also had a greater risk of preterm birth, compared with the healthy weight references (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.31–1.35), the researchers reported, adding that the association between maternal underweight and preterm birth was consistent across the maternal age and race/ethnicity groups.

Dr. Bao and colleagues found that, among non-Hispanic white women (who made up about half the cohort), maternal obesity was inversely associated with preterm birth when mothers were younger than 20 years (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97), but there was a crossover effect at age 20, when maternal obesity became positively associated with preterm birth until age 39 (aOR, 1.04 at ages 20-24, to 1.40 at ages 35-39). A similar pattern was seen in Hispanic women, for whom maternal obesity was not associated with preterm birth when they were younger than 20 (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04), but was positively associated with preterm birth after age 20 until age 39 (aOR, 1.06 at ages 20-24, to 1.38 at ages 35-39).

However, the crossover effect occurred considerably later in black women with obesity, for whom maternal obesity remained inversely associated with preterm birth until age 30 (aOR, 0.76 before age 20; 0.83 at ages 20-24; 0.98 at ages 25-29), at which point the crossover effect kicked in, and maternal obesity became positively associated with preterm birth, increasing steadily with advancing age (aOR, 1.15 at ages 30-34; 1.26 at ages 35-39; 1.29 from age 40). “Our results, which are based on a large and diverse U.S. population, provide, for the first time, a comprehensive review of the association between maternal obesity and preterm birth for women [at a] range of ages,” Dr. Bao and colleagues wrote in their analysis, which was published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The researchers hypothesized that the inverse association between prepregnancy obesity and preterm birth in teenagers and younger women could be explained by the fact that “[healthy weight] teenagers, who are still growing and developing, might compete with the fetus for nutrients, which could subsequently affect physiological and metabolic systems involved with parturition,” whereas pregnant teenagers with obesity “might not need to compete (or compete to a lesser extent) for nutrients with their babies for their own growth.” The researchers stressed that more research was needed to understand the underlying mechanisms of the associations. The findings of a protective effect until age 30 in black women also require further study, Dr. Bao and colleagues said.

They stressed that the findings do not argue for weight gain as a preventive measure against preterm birth for normal weight young women, as “younger women, whether obese or not, have a higher risk of preterm birth than women aged 25-29 years do in Hispanic and in non-Hispanic white populations. Additionally, the adverse effects that maternal obesity has on other perinatal and neonatal outcomes should not be overlooked.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bao et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:707-14.

Risk for preterm birth in women with prepregancy obesity differs significantly by the mother’s age and race/ethnicity, according to new findings from an analysis that used a large, ethnically diverse population sample.

Previous study findings have demonstrated that pregnant women with obesity have a higher risk of giving birth to preterm babies, but the effect of age and race on that risk was not clear until now.

In this latest study, Wei Bao, MD, and colleagues at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, looked at records from 7.14 million live births registered in the U.S. National Vital Statistics System for 2016 and 2017, of which about 7.4% were preterm. The researchers excluded from their sample women with preexisting diabetes or hypertension.

For the cohort overall, there was a significant association between prepregnancy body mass index and preterm birth, with mothers who were overweight (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.03) or obese (aOR, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.18–1.19), having a significantly higher risk of preterm birth, compared with healthy weight mothers. Underweight women also had a greater risk of preterm birth, compared with the healthy weight references (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.31–1.35), the researchers reported, adding that the association between maternal underweight and preterm birth was consistent across the maternal age and race/ethnicity groups.

Dr. Bao and colleagues found that, among non-Hispanic white women (who made up about half the cohort), maternal obesity was inversely associated with preterm birth when mothers were younger than 20 years (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97), but there was a crossover effect at age 20, when maternal obesity became positively associated with preterm birth until age 39 (aOR, 1.04 at ages 20-24, to 1.40 at ages 35-39). A similar pattern was seen in Hispanic women, for whom maternal obesity was not associated with preterm birth when they were younger than 20 (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04), but was positively associated with preterm birth after age 20 until age 39 (aOR, 1.06 at ages 20-24, to 1.38 at ages 35-39).

However, the crossover effect occurred considerably later in black women with obesity, for whom maternal obesity remained inversely associated with preterm birth until age 30 (aOR, 0.76 before age 20; 0.83 at ages 20-24; 0.98 at ages 25-29), at which point the crossover effect kicked in, and maternal obesity became positively associated with preterm birth, increasing steadily with advancing age (aOR, 1.15 at ages 30-34; 1.26 at ages 35-39; 1.29 from age 40). “Our results, which are based on a large and diverse U.S. population, provide, for the first time, a comprehensive review of the association between maternal obesity and preterm birth for women [at a] range of ages,” Dr. Bao and colleagues wrote in their analysis, which was published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The researchers hypothesized that the inverse association between prepregnancy obesity and preterm birth in teenagers and younger women could be explained by the fact that “[healthy weight] teenagers, who are still growing and developing, might compete with the fetus for nutrients, which could subsequently affect physiological and metabolic systems involved with parturition,” whereas pregnant teenagers with obesity “might not need to compete (or compete to a lesser extent) for nutrients with their babies for their own growth.” The researchers stressed that more research was needed to understand the underlying mechanisms of the associations. The findings of a protective effect until age 30 in black women also require further study, Dr. Bao and colleagues said.

They stressed that the findings do not argue for weight gain as a preventive measure against preterm birth for normal weight young women, as “younger women, whether obese or not, have a higher risk of preterm birth than women aged 25-29 years do in Hispanic and in non-Hispanic white populations. Additionally, the adverse effects that maternal obesity has on other perinatal and neonatal outcomes should not be overlooked.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bao et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:707-14.

Risk for preterm birth in women with prepregancy obesity differs significantly by the mother’s age and race/ethnicity, according to new findings from an analysis that used a large, ethnically diverse population sample.

Previous study findings have demonstrated that pregnant women with obesity have a higher risk of giving birth to preterm babies, but the effect of age and race on that risk was not clear until now.

In this latest study, Wei Bao, MD, and colleagues at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, looked at records from 7.14 million live births registered in the U.S. National Vital Statistics System for 2016 and 2017, of which about 7.4% were preterm. The researchers excluded from their sample women with preexisting diabetes or hypertension.

For the cohort overall, there was a significant association between prepregnancy body mass index and preterm birth, with mothers who were overweight (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.03) or obese (aOR, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.18–1.19), having a significantly higher risk of preterm birth, compared with healthy weight mothers. Underweight women also had a greater risk of preterm birth, compared with the healthy weight references (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.31–1.35), the researchers reported, adding that the association between maternal underweight and preterm birth was consistent across the maternal age and race/ethnicity groups.

Dr. Bao and colleagues found that, among non-Hispanic white women (who made up about half the cohort), maternal obesity was inversely associated with preterm birth when mothers were younger than 20 years (aOR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97), but there was a crossover effect at age 20, when maternal obesity became positively associated with preterm birth until age 39 (aOR, 1.04 at ages 20-24, to 1.40 at ages 35-39). A similar pattern was seen in Hispanic women, for whom maternal obesity was not associated with preterm birth when they were younger than 20 (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04), but was positively associated with preterm birth after age 20 until age 39 (aOR, 1.06 at ages 20-24, to 1.38 at ages 35-39).

However, the crossover effect occurred considerably later in black women with obesity, for whom maternal obesity remained inversely associated with preterm birth until age 30 (aOR, 0.76 before age 20; 0.83 at ages 20-24; 0.98 at ages 25-29), at which point the crossover effect kicked in, and maternal obesity became positively associated with preterm birth, increasing steadily with advancing age (aOR, 1.15 at ages 30-34; 1.26 at ages 35-39; 1.29 from age 40). “Our results, which are based on a large and diverse U.S. population, provide, for the first time, a comprehensive review of the association between maternal obesity and preterm birth for women [at a] range of ages,” Dr. Bao and colleagues wrote in their analysis, which was published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

The researchers hypothesized that the inverse association between prepregnancy obesity and preterm birth in teenagers and younger women could be explained by the fact that “[healthy weight] teenagers, who are still growing and developing, might compete with the fetus for nutrients, which could subsequently affect physiological and metabolic systems involved with parturition,” whereas pregnant teenagers with obesity “might not need to compete (or compete to a lesser extent) for nutrients with their babies for their own growth.” The researchers stressed that more research was needed to understand the underlying mechanisms of the associations. The findings of a protective effect until age 30 in black women also require further study, Dr. Bao and colleagues said.

They stressed that the findings do not argue for weight gain as a preventive measure against preterm birth for normal weight young women, as “younger women, whether obese or not, have a higher risk of preterm birth than women aged 25-29 years do in Hispanic and in non-Hispanic white populations. Additionally, the adverse effects that maternal obesity has on other perinatal and neonatal outcomes should not be overlooked.”

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Bao et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:707-14.