MDedge Endocrinology

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

Shikha Jain, MD, felt the urgency of the moment.

It was 10:00 AM. A young patient had stepped into her Chicago cancer clinic. His face was red, and he was struggling to breathe.

The man had primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, a rare, aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Many cases involve large, fast‐growing masses that expand into the lungs and compress respiratory pathways, sometimes leaving patients breathless.

Dr. Jain rushed to his side and walked him from the clinic to an ICU bed at the hospital nearby.

“He was so sick,” recalled Dr. Jain, currently a tenured associate professor of medicine in the division of hematology and oncology at the University of Illinois Cancer Center, Chicago. “He needed chemotherapy immediately.”

The standard chemotherapy regimen at the time – R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) – required prior authorization.

Dr. Jain’s patient did not have days to wait, so Dr. Jain requested an expedited approval. The insurance company responded quickly, denying the request for treatment.

That evening, after hours on the phone trying to reverse the denial, Dr. Jain was able to arrange a peer-to-peer conversation with the insurer. She explained her patient’s pressing need for chemotherapy: He would die if he continued to wait.

But Dr. Jain’s argument did not move the reviewer. At that point, she had reached her limit.

“I asked for the gentleman’s full name. I told him he would be responsible for this 30-year-old man’s death, and my next call would be to CNN,” Dr. Jain told this news organization. “And that is how I got my patient’s chemotherapy approved.”

Her patient received the regimen that evening. He later went into remission.

This incident occurred almost a decade ago, but it has stayed with Dr. Jain. She knows that her persistence in that moment meant the difference between her patient’s life and death.

Since then, Dr. Jain has confronted a growing onslaught of prior authorization requirements. Her days are often sidelined by prior authorization paperwork and calls.

There was the denial for standard-of-care staging and surveillance imaging – dotatate PET/CT – for her patient with neuroendocrine cancer. “The specific insurance company simply doesn’t approve this imaging, despite being around for years,” she said.

There was the patient with metastatic colon cancer who needed third-line therapy. His insurer took more than a month to reverse its denial for a recently approved drug, and in that time, the man’s disease progressed. “He eventually succumbed to the cancer after receiving the drug, but it’s unclear if his life was cut short by the delay in care,” Dr. Jain said.

And there is the maze of insurance company phone calls and transfers. On one call, Dr. Jain recalled being transferred six times before being connected to the right department to discuss approving standard-of-care chemotherapy for a patient. After being denied approval, Dr. Jain was put on hold to speak with a manager, and the call was abruptly disconnected.

“I have wasted so many hours on prior authorization and have seen months and months of patient care delays,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s easy to see why people just give up.”

For Dr. Jain, prior authorization has begun to “feel like psychological warfare,” she said. “To have everything questioned by people who don’t understand the basics of oncology is demoralizing.”

The growing administrative – and emotional – burden of prior authorization is contributing to physician burnout.

According to Medscape’s ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, more than half of oncologists reported feeling burned out this year – the highest percentage in 5 years. When asked what factors led to burnout, most doctors surveyed pointed to an overabundance of bureaucratic tasks, and specifically, “insurance companies telling me how to practice medicine and controlling what the patients can and can’t do.”

“Burnout is a real problem in medicine,” said Kelly Anderson, PhD, MPP, assistant professor in the department of clinical pharmacy, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “While there are many factors that contribute to burnout, prior authorization is certainly one.”

In a 2022 survey from the American Medical Association, 88% of respondents reported that the burden associated with prior authorization requirements was “high or extremely high.”

Although insurers argue that prior authorization cuts down on unnecessary and expensive care, physicians in the AMA survey reported that this practice often leads to greater overall use of health care resources, including more emergency department and office visits.

“Insurers are confident that prior authorization is saving money overall, but there’s also no clear evidence of that,” Dr. Anderson noted. “Prior authorization may reduce spending without harming patients in some instances, but in others, it’s adding administrative burden, costs, and may be causing harm to patients.”

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

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

This is the second in a three-part series on the obesity crisis. Part one tackles a complicated question – why does the obesity rate keep rising despite our efforts to stop it? – and can be found here. Part three shows how doctors and patients can make treatment better and can be found here. 

In the mid-1980s, Louis J. Aronne, MD, strolled into a lab at Rockefeller University in New York where a colleague was breeding mice. “I will never forget what he showed me,” said Dr. Aronne, now the director of obesity research and treatment at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. “He had a cage with 10 mice, one severely obese and the others normal weight. He took blood from one of the thin mice and gave it to the fat mouse.”
 

When Dr. Aronne returned 3 days later, that obese mouse had turned thin. 

It was proof of something Dr. Aronne already suspected: Obesity had biological causes and wasn’t just a failure of willpower.

Years later, in 1994, that research led to the discovery of leptin, a hormone released from fat cells that’s involved in the regulation of body weight. It was a watershed moment in obesity research. 

Since then, Dr. Aronne and others have worked to build the clinical field of obesity medicine, attempting to shift the public and medical view of obesity from a purely behavioral issue to a disease worthy of medical treatment. 

All the while, the U.S. obesity rate soared. 

Now, another watershed moment: We finally have highly effective obesity drugs. The hype is real, and so are the weight loss results. 

“I’ve been saying for 30 years that when we find treatments that really work, people aren’t going to believe the results,” Dr. Aronne said. “It took longer than I expected, but it’s gratifying now to see.”

All this excitement raises a crucial question: Will the new drugs finally end the obesity crisis? Experts have their doubts.
 

The big question

The emerging class of obesity medications known as GLP-1 agonists is indeed a game changer. The weight loss drug semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) showed groundbreaking results, and studies suggest a parade of even more impressive drugs is on the way.

Yes, the drugs offer new hope to millions with obesity complications. But to truly turn the tide on our 42% obesity rate, much more work remains to be done, researchers said, including answering a big question:

How do these weight loss drugs work? 

“We have new blockbuster drugs, and we don’t even know why they reduce body weight,” said Samuel Klein, MD, professor of medicine and nutritional science at Washington University in St. Louis. “It was by accident that this was discovered.”
 

Oops, we created a weight loss drug

Developed to treat diabetes, the GLP-1 drugs’ weight loss effects were a surprise. Now that those effects are confirmed, pharmaceutical companies and researchers are racing to figure out how these drugs work. 

In the 1960s, scientists discovered the incretin effect – when you eat glucose (sugar), your body makes more insulin than it does if glucose is given intravenously. Glucose passes through the GI tract and the gut releases hormones that stimulate insulin secretion. It’s “essentially a feed-forward signal to your pancreas to tell it, ‘By the way, you need to be ready because there’s a bunch of glucose coming,’ ” said Randy Seeley, MD, director of the Michigan Nutrition Obesity Research Center, funded by the National Institutes of Health. 

One of these hormones – or “incretins” – is GLP-1. In experiments, people with type 2 diabetes who were hooked up to GLP-1 saw their blood sugar go down. 

“That led to the idea that if we could take this native hormone and make it last longer, we’d have a therapy for type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Seeley. Thanks to a GLP-1-like compound in the saliva of the Gila monster, that idea became reality in the 2000s. 

Along the way, a surprising side finding came to light: In early trials, diabetes patients on these drugs dropped weight. 

Both Ozempic and Wegovy – brand names for semaglutide – are once-weekly injections (pill forms to treat obesity are on the way), but the latter is a higher dose. 

“That dose results in about 40% of patients in the clinical trials achieving a 20% weight loss. We’ve just had nothing like that in terms of efficacy before,” said Dr. Seeley, who has worked with some of the drug companies (including Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wegovy, and Eli Lilly, maker of Mounjaro) that market the GLP-1s. 

By contrast, semaglutide’s once-a-day predecessor liraglutide (Saxenda, made by Novo Nordisk) can lead to about 10% weight loss. 

“And one of the ironies is, we don’t really know why,” Dr. Seeley said. “We don’t know why semaglutide is a better molecule for weight loss than liraglutide.” 

Initially, scientists believed that the drugs, in addition to telling the pancreas to secrete more insulin, were also signaling the brain that you’re full. “Turns out that’s not really the way it works,” Dr. Seeley said. “GLP-1 made from your gut probably doesn’t get into your brain very much. But you make GLP-1 in your brain as well.”

For weight loss, it’s the brain’s GLP-1 system, not the gut’s, that the drugs are thought to hijack. But exactly which parts of the brain they affect and how is unknown. “That’s something lots of people are working on, including our own lab,” Dr. Seeley said. (Another surprise: The drugs may have potential as an anti-addiction treatment.)

The diabetes medication tirzepatide (Mounjaro), expected to be approved for weight loss as early as this year, is also a weekly injection, but it has a unique feature: It starts a response not just for GLP-1 but also for another incretin called GIP. Turns out, two is better than one: Trial participants on tirzepatide lost up to 22.5% of their body weight. 

More of these hybrid drugs are on the way, Dr. Seeley said. In mid-stage clinical trials, the drug retatrutide, which targets three hormones, led to 24% weight loss. “The idea is the more bullets we can load into the gun, the more we can push the biology into a place where it’s easier to lose weight.”
 

Shifting from prevention to damage control

Less invasive and more scalable than surgery (only 1% of the eligible population gets bariatric surgery), the drugs offer doctors a safe, effective way to treat many patients with obesity. That’s cause for excitement, but concerns remain because they are expensive, costing about $800 to $1,300 per month out of pocket. Many health insurers, including Medicare, do not cover them for weight loss. 

“You have this significant advance in obesity treatment, but very few will be able to access it,” said Gary Foster, PhD, adjunct professor of psychology in psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and chief scientific officer at WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

There is a push, including a proposed bill, to get Medicare to cover obesity medication. But given the expense of the drugs, the health economics do not support that move, according to an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine. If Medicare were to cover obesity meds, the budget impact would likely be huge, potentially driving up premiums. If other payers followed suit, the impact could be felt across the U.S. health care system. 

Other drawbacks include side effects – including nausea, diarrhea, stomach pain, and vomiting – that can be so bad that some patients can’t tolerate them.

And critically, the drugs do not deal with the root cause of the problem, said Robert Lustig, MD, an endocrinologist and pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco, who has suggested that excess insulin is driving obesity. “No one has the disease that these drugs are treating. No one has GLP-1 deficiency. They’re bypassing the problem. They’re band-aiding the problem.” 

Because the drugs work by mimicking starvation – they appear to curb hunger, so you eat less – people on them lose not just fat but also healthy lean mass, Dr. Lustig said. 

Concerns about pancreatitis did not really bear out in postmarketing reports. (The drugs are still not recommended in people with pancreatitis or multiple endocrine neoplasia.) But predicting longer-term outcomes can be difficult, noted Dr. Lustig.

Then there are philosophical questions, said James Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.. “If you’re continuing to not exercise and eat not healthy foods and take a medication, is that success? Have we won when people are at a lower weight but not doing a healthy behavior?”

‘We can’t treat our way out of this’

The fact is, ending the obesity epidemic is a tall order, even for drugs as impressive as these. 

“We can’t treat our way out of this,” said Jamy Ard, MD, codirector of Wake Forest Baptist Health Weight Management Center in Winston-Salem, N.C. “The treatments we have now are great, and there will be more coming. But we do need to figure out the prevention side of things.” 

Dr. Seeley agreed but added that we can’t diet-and-exercise our way out either. 

“There’s no switch to be flipped,” Dr. Seeley said. “If you told me we shouldn’t spend all this money on these drugs, we should spend it on prevention – great! What would we do?” 

And prevention efforts won’t help the millions already living with health problems from obesity, Dr. Aronne said. 

“Getting people to stop smoking prevents lung cancer. But stopping smoking doesn’t treat lung cancer,” Dr. Aronne said. “Once the physical changes occur in the lung that cause a tumor to grow, it’s too late. You have to think of obesity the same way.” 

Dr. Seeley pointed out that “fearmongering” around the drugs highlights our lingering bias that obesity is a lifestyle issue that should not be medically treated. 

“People say, ‘When you stop taking it, you’re going to gain the weight back,’ ” Dr. Seeley said. “There’s truth to that, but when you stop taking your hypertension medication, your blood pressure goes up. We don’t think of that as a [reason] for why you shouldn’t take your blood pressure medication. But that gets trumpeted into all these conversations about whether people [with obesity] should be treated at all.”

Like obesity, blood pressure was once thought to be a behavioral problem, Dr. Aronne said. But blood pressure meds prevent heart attacks and strokes. And it’s likely obesity meds will do the same. 

One 55-year-old patient on the road to kidney failure lost weight on obesity medications, including semaglutide, Dr. Aronne said. Now, 6 years later, his kidney function is back to normal. “Normally, we think of kidney disease as irreversible,” Dr. Aronne said. 

In that respect, these drugs should save money in the long run by virtue of heading off those health care costs, said Dr. Seeley, who imagines a future where obesity is not gone but better managed, like high blood pressure is now. 

In the end, the drugs are another step toward what Dr. Aronne and many others have always pushed for: Treating obesity as a disease. 
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Topline

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) use lowers the risk for death, cardiovascular disease, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver failure in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and compensated liver cirrhosis, new observational data show.

Methodology

• Population-based cohort study using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan.
• Propensity-score matching was used to construct 467 matched pairs of GLP-1 RA users and nonusers (mean age, 57) with T2D and compensated liver cirrhosis.
• All-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, decompensated cirrhosis, and other key outcomes were compared using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

Takeaway

• During mean follow-up of about 3 years, rates of death per 1,000 person-years were 27.5 in GLP-1 RA users versus 55.9 in nonusers.
• GLP-1 RA users had a significantly lower risk for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47), cardiovascular events (aHR, 0.6), decompensated cirrhosis (aHR, 0.7), hepatic encephalopathy (aHR, 0.59), and liver failure (aHR, 0.54).
• A longer cumulative duration of GLP-1 RA use was associated with lower risk for these outcomes compared with no use.

In practice

“GLP-1 RAs may be a treatment option for diabetes patients with liver cirrhosis. However, additional studies are needed to confirm our results and to explore the mechanisms of GLP-1 RAs, cirrhotic decompensation and hepatic encephalopathy,” the researchers concluded.

Study details

The study was led by Fu-Shun Yen, Dr Yen’s Clinic, Taoyuan, Taiwan. It was published online June 16, 2023, in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Funding was provided in part by the Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare Clinical Trial Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Limitations 

Limitations of the study include a lack of complete information on family history, diet, body weight, and physical activity, as well as biochemical tests, hemoglobin A1c, pathology, and imaging findings that could potentially influence the results.

Disclosures

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

fpnews@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

SAN DIEGO – An assessment of people with diabetes before Ramadan is vital so they can learn whether it is safe for them to fast, and if it is, how to do so without jeopardizing their health.

“With correct advice and support” from knowledgeable health care professionals “most people with type 2 diabetes can fast safely during Ramadan,” Mohamed Hassanein, MBChB, said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

One of the most authoritative guidelines on how people with diabetes can safely fast during Ramadan has come from a collaboration between the International Diabetes Federation and the Diabetes & Ramadan International Alliance, an organization chaired by Dr. Hassanein. The groups issued a revised practical guide in 2021 for Ramadan fasting for people with diabetes, an update of the first edition released in 2016. Dr. Hassanein was lead author of the 2016 guidelines and edited the 2021 revision.

The 2021 guidelines also led to an update of a risk stratification app available for free from the DAR. The app provides risk stratification for people with diabetes and helps them access educational material to guide them through their fasts.

Although the latest guidelines address fasting for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, far more people with type 2 diabetes are at risk from fasting, and not only because of the higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes.

Results from a global survey of Muslims with diabetes in 2020 showed that 30% of those with type 1 diabetes did not do any fasting during Ramadan, but the percentage of those abstaining from fasting dropped to 16% among Muslims with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Hassanein explained. (Survey results in 2013 from about 38,000 Muslims in 39 countries showed a median of 7% of all adults did no fasting during Ramadan.)
 

Risk assessment by app

Currently, the DAR app is available in Arabic, English, French, and Urdu (the primary language of Pakistan), with more languages being added soon, said Dr. Hassanein, an endocrinologist at Dubai Hospital and professor at Mohammed Bin-Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

The app and screening protocol divides people with diabetes into low-, moderate-, and high-risk subgroups, and those at high risk are advised to refrain from fasting.

But the many other people with diabetes who potentially could fast still face risks for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia (from overindulgent break-fast meals), diabetic ketoacidosis, dehydration, and thrombosis. Individual risk for these adverse events depends on many factors, including age, duration of diabetes, diabetes type, treatments received, history of hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications.

Dr. Hassanein and colleagues documented the high rate of complications from fasting in a 2020 survey of more than 5,800 Muslims with type 2 diabetes from 20 countries. The results showed that 72% of survey participants had to interrupt their 30 days of daily fasting for at least 1 day because of a diabetes-related event, and an additional 28% had diabetes-triggered interruptions that totaled more than 7 days. About 7% required hospitalization or an emergency department visit, and 16% developed at least one episode of daytime hypoglycemia.
 

Endorsement from Islamic clerics

The recommended risk assessment, and resulting exemptions from fasting, have been endorsed by the Mofty of Egypt, a group of religious scholars who issue legal opinions interpreting Islamic law.

The Mofty agreed that fasting should be interrupted for cases of hypoglycemia with blood glucose less than 70 mg/dL, hyperglycemia with blood glucose greater than 300 mg/dL, symptoms of hypo- or hyperglycemia, or symptoms of acute illness. The Mofty also endorsed that although fasting is obligatory for low-risk adults with diabetes and preferred for those with moderate-risk diabetes, the latter group may consider not fasting out of concern for their safety or to take prescribed medications. People at high risk were deemed by the Mofty as individuals who should not fast because of the potential for harm.

Other notable 2020 survey findings included pre-Ramadan education being received by just 43% of the respondents, and no self-monitoring of blood glucose performed by about a quarter of the respondents.

The 2021 guidelines also include treatment recommendations, such as avoiding older, longer-acting sulfonylurea agents in people with type 2 diabetes. And having people achieve stable, guideline-directed dosages of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists before Ramadan starts, rather than trying to initiate these agents during Ramadan. The guidelines also recommend reducing usual insulin doses when fasting during Ramadan.

Despite summarizing findings from several observational studies and surveys, research to date on how to optimize the safety of diabetes management during Ramadan fasting “is all very basic,” Dr. Hassanein said in an interview.

“We need more randomized clinical trials. We need more [data and evidence] for every single aspect” of management, he added.

The 2021 Diabetes and Ramadan Practical Guidelines were supported by an educational grant from Sanofi and Servier. Dr. Hassanein has reported being a speaker on behalf of Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Servier.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.

I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).

During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.

LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.

Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.

However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.

Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.

Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.

I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.

I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.

The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.

Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.

In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.

A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.

I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.

OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.

PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.

So, the future appears very bright for oral GLP-1 agonists. I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.

However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.

One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.

On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.

This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.

Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

SAN DIEGO – Prescribing optimal medical therapy for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease can and should improve, speakers urged at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A symposium there focused on the recent randomized, controlled COORDINATE-Diabetes trial, which investigated a multipronged educational intervention in 43 U.S. cardiology clinics aimed at improving prescribing of guideline-recommended treatments for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Compared with clinics that were randomly assigned to offer usual care, the intervention significantly increased recommended prescribing of high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and/or glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 agonists).

COORDINATE-Diabetes was aimed at cardiologists, who typically see these patients more often than do endocrinologists. However, the results are relevant to all health care providers involved in the care of those with type 2 diabetes, speakers argued at the ADA symposium.

“This is a cardiology study. I think it’s safe to say that not too many of you in the room are cardiologists. So why would you care about the results of the COORDINATE study?” said Ildiko Lingvay, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Lingvay went on to outline reasons that the COORDINATE findings apply to endocrinologists and primary care clinicians, as well as cardiologists. For one, a study from her institution that was presented at a recent internal medicine meeting showed that, among more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and/or chronic kidney disease, the proportion of patients who were prescribed the appropriate guideline-indicated medications was 20.1% for those seen in primary care, 24.8% in endocrinology, 20.3% in cardiology, and 18.3% in nephrology.

“So, we [endocrinologists are] not that much better [than other specialties]” at prescribing, she noted.

Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, in independent commentary called the COORDINATE trial and other similar initiatives “the beginning of care transformation.”

The COORDINATE-Diabetes results were originally presented in March at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The study was simultaneously published in JAMA.
 

‘They’ve shown we can do better’

Asked to comment, Robert H. Eckel, MD, said in an interview, “I look at COORDINATE as a wake-up call to the need for multispecialty approaches to people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. ... I think it’s a step in the door.”

Dr. Eckel, who has long advocated for a new “cardiometabolic” physician subspecialty, noted that COORDINATE-Diabetes “stopped short of training health care providers in the science and medicine of cardio-renal-metabolic disease.”

Nonetheless, regarding the efforts toward a more coordinated system of care, Dr. Eckel said, “I support the concept, unequivocally.” He is associated with the division of endocrinology, metabolism, and diabetes, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

But the cost-effectiveness of the intervention “requires time to assess,” he added. “We don’t know anything yet other than [that] managing drug administration to meet goals that relate to outcomes in people with diabetes can be accomplished. They’ve shown that we can do better.”
 

Why should you care about a cardiology study?

In COORDINATE-Diabetes, 20 of the centers were randomly assigned to provide five interventions: assess local barriers, develop care pathways, coordinate care, educate clinicians, report data back to the clinics, and provide tools for the 459 participants. The other 23 clinics, with 590 participants, were randomly assigned to provide usual care per practice guidelines.

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that prescribed all three groups of the recommended therapies at 6-12 months after enrollment; 37.9% prescribed the intervention, and 14.5% provided usual care, a significant 23% difference (P < .001). The rate of prescriptions of each of the three individual drug groups was also significantly higher with the intervention. No differences were seen in cardiovascular risk factors or outcomes.

Dr. Lingvay pointed out that the interventions tested in COORDINATE – such as fact sheets and medication passports for patients, system audits and feedback, and provider grand rounds – can be extrapolated to any specialist setting.

She added that the long-held model of team-based care means that “everyone involved in the care of these patients is responsible for ensuring best practices are followed.” Part of that, she said, is helping other specialists prescribe the same medications and communicate across the team.

For all specialists, she recommends using the resources available on the COORDINATE website.
 

‘It’s not a silver bullet; additional solutions are needed’

In his commentary, Dr. Kosiborod, executive director of the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, noted, “The treatments studied in COORDINATE represent the biggest advances in a generation when it comes to improving outcomes in this population. ... We’re living in a renaissance age with the number of tools we have available. ... It’s getting better every day.”

Moreover, all the relevant professional society guidelines now recommend GLP-1 agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. “And yet, when we look, less than 1 in 10 patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are getting appropriate recommended care. One of the lessons of COORDINATE is that this needs to change if we’re really going to improve our patients’ lives.”

The barriers aren’t simply financial, Dr. Kosiborod said. He pointed to two studies that show that even reducing out-of-pocket costs resulted in only modest increases in adherence.

Educational gaps on the part of both clinicians and patients also factor in, as do misaligned incentives.

“Clinicians get paid for how many things they do, not necessarily how well they do them. Everyone wants to do the right thing, but ultimately, incentives do matter,” he emphasized.

While the COORDINATE-Diabetes interventions addressed several of the barriers, two-thirds of the participants still did not receive optimal therapy.

“It’s not a silver bullet. ... Additional solutions are needed,” Dr. Kosiborod observed.
 

Transformation occurs ‘when the status quo is no longer acceptable’

Enter his institution, the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance, part of Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute. The nonprofit system, which currently has 16 subscribing clinics around the country, offers patient-centered “team-based, coordinated, comprehensive care” for people with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The model is led by preventive cardiology in collaboration with endocrinology and primary care. Support staff includes advance practice providers, nurse navigators, certified diabetes educators, dietitians, and pharmacists. Individualized treatment plans aim for “aggressive secondary risk reduction,” Dr. Kosiborod noted.

Six-month data from the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance show an increase from 28.2% at baseline to 67.1% (P < .0001) in prescribing of a four-agent guideline-directed medical therapy “bundle,” including the three from COORDINATE-Diabetes plus an antiplatelet or anticoagulant agent. Dr. Kosiborod presented these data during the ADA meeting in a poster.

Remaining questions involve sustainability, scalability, and system transformation, which require buy-in from multiple stakeholders, he noted.

He contends that it can be done. A prior example of “rapid and lasting care transformation” occurred in November 2006 with the launch of the “Door to Balloon (D2B) Alliance for Quality,” which dramatically increased the proportion of patients who received primary angioplasty within 90 minutes at hospitals around the United States. From January 2005 to September 2010, those proportions rose from 27.3% to 70.4%.

“Patients were coming into the emergency department with myocardial infarctions and waiting for hours before the interventional cardiologist came. The community said we needed a nationwide quality improvement initiative. ... Almost every hospital in the country changed their systems of care. It was a huge national effort. ... When we no longer consider the status quo acceptable, we can actually make something very special happen very quickly.”

After the session, Dr. Kosiborod said in an interview that the Cardiometabolic Center Alliance is now gathering data to make the financial case for the approach.

“We’re trying to develop a model that tells the admins which patients will save money, because, of course, if you can create a financial incentive, it only makes it go faster. ... We want to synchronize it in the best way possible.”

Dr. Lingvay has receiving nonfinancial support and grants from Novo Nordisk, personal fees or nonfinancial support from Sanofi, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck/Pfizer, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Intercept, Target Pharma, Zealand, Shionogi, Carmot, Structure, Bayer, Mediflix, WebMD, GI Dynamics, Intarcia Therapeutics, Mannkind, Novartis, Structure Therapeutics, and Valeritas. Dr. Kosiborod is a consultant for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, ESPERION Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, Vifor Pharma Management, and Youngene Therapeutics. He also receives research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Eckel serves on consulting/advisory boards for Amgen, Arrowhead, Better, Ionis, Kowa, Lexicon, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, The Healthy Aging Company, Tolmar, and Weight Watchers.

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

In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.

The percentage of time spent in the pregnancy-specific target blood glucose range of 63-140 mg/dL (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) from 16 weeks’ gestation to delivery was significantly higher in women in the AID group.

Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”

The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.

Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”  

However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
 

Two experts weigh in

Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.

“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

Study rationale, method, and findings

Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.

“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.

Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin. 

As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.

Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.

They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.

A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).

Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.

The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
 

Ongoing studies, off-label use

Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”

There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.

The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.

“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.

“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.

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

In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.

The percentage of time spent in the pregnancy-specific target blood glucose range of 63-140 mg/dL (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) from 16 weeks’ gestation to delivery was significantly higher in women in the AID group.

Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”

The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.

Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”  

However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
 

Two experts weigh in

Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.

“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

Study rationale, method, and findings

Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.

“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.

Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin. 

As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.

Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.

They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.

A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).

Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.

The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
 

Ongoing studies, off-label use

Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”

There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.

The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.

“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.

“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.

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

In the largest randomized controlled trial of an automated insulin delivery (AID) system (hybrid closed-loop) versus standard insulin delivery in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, the automated CamAPS FX system prevailed.

The percentage of time spent in the pregnancy-specific target blood glucose range of 63-140 mg/dL (3.5-7.8 mmol/L) from 16 weeks’ gestation to delivery was significantly higher in women in the AID group.

Helen R. Murphy, MD, presented these topline findings from the Automated Insulin Delivery Amongst Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (AiDAPT) trial during an e-poster session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

The “hybrid closed-loop significantly improved maternal glucose and should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” concluded Dr. Murphy, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia and a clinician at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital in the United Kingdom.

CamAPS FX is the only AID system approved in Europe and the United Kingdom for type 1 diabetes from age 1 and during pregnancy. The hybrid closed-loop system is not available in the United States but other systems are available and sometimes used off label in pregnancy. Such systems are sometimes known colloquially as an “artificial pancreas.”

The researchers said their findings provide evidence for the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to recommend that all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered the CamAPS FX system.

Asked by an audience member about type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, Dr. Murphy said: “I don’t think we can necessarily extend these data to women with type 2 diabetes. We just don’t have enough data on glucose profiles in type 2 to train an algorithm yet.”  

However, the data provide support for earlier use of closed-loop therapy in type 1 diabetes, she said. “The ideal time to start closed-loop is not necessarily between 8 and 12 weeks. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned,” she noted, “so start [AID] as early as possible [in patients with type 1 diabetes].”
 

Two experts weigh in

Whether pregnant women with type 1 diabetes should be offered hybrid closed-loop therapy “depends,” said Anne L. Peters, MD, who was not involved with the research.

“It is all about being able to set [blood glucose] targets,” according to Dr. Peters, director of the University of Southern California Westside Center for Diabetes in Los Angeles.

USC Westside Center for Diabetes

Study rationale, method, and findings

Pregnant women with diabetes are advised to aim for very tight glucose targets throughout pregnancy and avoid hyperglycemia, to reduce risk of preterm delivery, neonatal weight > 90th percentile, and neonatal morbidity, according to Dr. Murphy and colleagues.

“However, despite increased use of [CGM], continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and improved insulin analogs, achieving and maintaining the recommended glucose targets remains challenging for most pregnant women with type 1 diabetes,” they wrote in their abstract.

Researchers randomized 124 women who had type 1 diabetes for at least 12 months, were at < 13 weeks’ to 6 days’ gestation, and had an A1c of 6.5% to < 10% who were taking intensive standard insulin therapy at nine antenatal clinics in the United Kingdom. Half of the women were using CSII and half were receiving multiple daily injections of insulin. 

As explained in the published study protocol, the women were randomized to continue their standard insulin delivery or switch to a closed-loop system consisting of the study insulin pump (Dana Diabecare RS), a CGM transmitter, and an app (CamAPS FX) on an Android smartphone that communicates wirelessly with the insulin pump and CGM transmitter.

Participants in both groups used the same CGM system and received support for insulin dose adjustment from their antenatal clinical care team.

They were a mean age of 31 years, had a mean A1c of 7.7%, and had had type 1 diabetes for 17 years on average. Their body mass index varied; 37% had normal weight, 27% had overweight, and 26% had obesity.

A significantly higher percentage of women in the AID group than in the control group had blood glucose in target range more than 70% of the time (46% vs. 10%; P < .001).

Compared with women in the control group, those in the AID group had larger reductions in hyperglycemia (–11%; P < .001), higher overnight time-in-range (13%; P < .001), and lower A1c (–0.34%; P < .001), without additional insulin, weight gain, or hypoglycemia.

The effect was consistent across clinical sites and maternal age and A1c categories.
 

Ongoing studies, off-label use

Hybrid closed-loop systems “including Tandem Control IQ, the Omnipod 5, and the Medtronic 780G give insulin continuously on the basis of values obtained from a sensor,” Dr. Peters explained in a recent commentary. “These aren’t fully closed-loop systems because the individual still has to interact with the system and give doses for meals, and then adjust doses for exercise.”

There are currently three studies using commercially available AID systems without pregnancy-specific glucose targets, in type 1 diabetes pregnancies, Dr. Polsky noted.

The Pregnancy Intervention With a Closed-Loop System (PICLS) trial used the Medtronic 670G system in pregnancy and was conducted in the United States. The Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CRISTAL) study is using the Medtronic 780G system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. And the Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancies (CIRCUIT) study is using the Tandem Control IQ system in pregnancy and is being conducted in Canada, she explained.

“The decision to continue to use or to initiate (off-label) use of any of these systems in pregnancy should be individualized, and pregnant individuals should make these decisions by working with an experienced endocrine/diabetes team,” Dr. Polsky stressed.

“The hope is that the results of these exciting trials will show safe and effective use of these systems throughout gestation with improvements in glucose control and quality of life,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, JDRF, and Diabetes Research and Wellness Foundation. Dr. Murphy has reported being on the advisory panel for Medtronic and receiving research support from Dexcom. Dr. Peters disclosed that she served as a consultant for Blue Circle Health, Vertex, and Abbott Diabetes Care, received a research grant from Abbott Diabetes Care, and received stock options from Teladoc and Omada Health. Dr. Polsky has disclosed that she is a contributing writer for diaTribe, was on a medical advisory board for Medtronic MiniMed, has received research funding from DexCom, Eli Lilly, JDRF, Leona & Harry Helmsley Charitable Trust, NIDDK, and Sanofi, and has received research support from Diasome Pharmaceuticals, LabStyle Innovation, Lexicon, Medtronic MiniMed, and Sanofi.

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

SAN DIEGO – Survodutide, a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “striking” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing trial in people with overweight/obesity but without type 2 diabetes.

Close to 40% of people who were taking the highest dose lost 20% or more of their starting weight at 46 weeks, Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma are developing survodutide (formerly BI 456906) to treat obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a company press release.

Glucagon receptor agonism increases energy expenditure, and GLP-1 receptor agonism inhibits appetite, both part of the mechanism of action, Dr. Le Roux, a professor at University College in Dublin, explained.

The trial showed a “striking” and clear dose-response in terms of weight loss, with no new unexpected safety signals, he reported.

Invited to comment, session moderator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, noted that “Obesity is one of the main risk factors for [type 2] diabetes.”

“It’s very stimulating to see this new medication class make such a big impact on weight loss in such a short amount of time,” Dr. Patorno, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. However, whether the weight loss can be maintained over time remains to be determined in further research, she said.

Head-to-head weight-loss studies of the dual agonist survodutide versus the mono GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) have not been conducted, Dr. Le Roux said during a press briefing.

“What we don’t know is if somebody doesn’t respond to [weight-loss drug] product A, will they respond to product B?” he said. Because survodutide acts on two types of receptors, “you could argue that you would not only increase the absolute amount of weight but you might also increase the number of patients who would respond, but that’s theoretical at the moment,” he explained.
 

Close to 400 patients, five doses, 46-week endpoint

The researchers randomized 387 adults aged 18-75 who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m² (overweight or obesity) without type 2 diabetes at sites in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and Asia.

On average, patients were 49 years old with a body weight of 106 kg (234 lb) and a BMI of 37 kg/m², and 68% were women.

They were randomized to receive a planned weekly subcutaneous maintenance survodutide dose of 0.6 mg (76 patients), 2.4 mg (78 patients), 3.6 mg (76 patients), or 4.8 mg (76 patients), or placebo (77 patients).

The dose was escalated rapidly (monthly) during a 20-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 26-week maintenance phase.

Patients who did not reach the planned dose remained on a lower dose during the maintenance phase.

In terms of actual treatment, during the maintenance phase, 76 patients were taking placebo, 88 patients were taking 0.6 mg survodutide, 92 were taking 2.4 mg survodutide, 71 were taking 3.6 mg survodutide, and 54 were taking 4.8 mg survodutide, all given as weekly subcutaneous injections.

Primary outcome was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 46.

Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who reached a body weight reduction of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% from baseline to week 46.

Mean weight loss at 46 weeks in the planned treatment analysis (where some patients in each group were taking a lower than planned dose during maintenance) was 6.2% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group, 12.5% in the 2.4-mg group, 13.2% in the 3.6-mg group, 14.9% in the 4.8-mg group, and 2.8% in the placebo group.

Among participants who did reach and stay on their assigned dose during the maintenance phase, average weight loss was 6.8% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group,13.6% with 2.4 mg survodutide,16.7% with 3.6 mg survodutide, 18.6% with 4.8 mg survodutide, and 2.0% with placebo.

That is, patients reaching and staying on a weekly subcutaneous dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost 18.6% of their body weight at 46 weeks, Dr. Le Roux emphasized.

In terms of secondary outcomes, in the group of patients with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 83%, 69%, and 55% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

In the group of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 98%, 82%, and 67% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

Moreover, 33% of patients in the group with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide and 38% of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost ≥ 20% of their baseline body weight by week 46.

Adverse events occurred in 91% of patients in the survodutide groups and 75% in the placebo group. The most common side effects were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, which were mostly mild to moderate and mainly occurred during dose escalation. These effects may potentially be mitigated by more gradual dose escalation, Dr. Le Roux said.

There were no unexpected safety or tolerability concerns, and no serious drug-related adverse events.

These “encouraging data” support further study of survodutide for weight loss in larger phase 3 trials, Dr. Le Roux and colleagues conclude.
 

Survodutide has FDA fast track designation for NASH

Survodutide has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fast Track Designation for adults with NASH. The drug is currently being evaluated in a phase 2 study in adults with NASH and stages F1/F2/F3 liver fibrosis, with trial completion expected in the last quarter of 2023.

The current trial was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Le Roux has reported being on an advisory panel for Boehringer Ingelheim and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors are Boehringer Ingelheim employees.

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

SAN DIEGO – Survodutide, a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “striking” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing trial in people with overweight/obesity but without type 2 diabetes.

Close to 40% of people who were taking the highest dose lost 20% or more of their starting weight at 46 weeks, Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma are developing survodutide (formerly BI 456906) to treat obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a company press release.

Glucagon receptor agonism increases energy expenditure, and GLP-1 receptor agonism inhibits appetite, both part of the mechanism of action, Dr. Le Roux, a professor at University College in Dublin, explained.

The trial showed a “striking” and clear dose-response in terms of weight loss, with no new unexpected safety signals, he reported.

Invited to comment, session moderator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, noted that “Obesity is one of the main risk factors for [type 2] diabetes.”

“It’s very stimulating to see this new medication class make such a big impact on weight loss in such a short amount of time,” Dr. Patorno, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. However, whether the weight loss can be maintained over time remains to be determined in further research, she said.

Head-to-head weight-loss studies of the dual agonist survodutide versus the mono GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) have not been conducted, Dr. Le Roux said during a press briefing.

“What we don’t know is if somebody doesn’t respond to [weight-loss drug] product A, will they respond to product B?” he said. Because survodutide acts on two types of receptors, “you could argue that you would not only increase the absolute amount of weight but you might also increase the number of patients who would respond, but that’s theoretical at the moment,” he explained.
 

Close to 400 patients, five doses, 46-week endpoint

The researchers randomized 387 adults aged 18-75 who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m² (overweight or obesity) without type 2 diabetes at sites in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and Asia.

On average, patients were 49 years old with a body weight of 106 kg (234 lb) and a BMI of 37 kg/m², and 68% were women.

They were randomized to receive a planned weekly subcutaneous maintenance survodutide dose of 0.6 mg (76 patients), 2.4 mg (78 patients), 3.6 mg (76 patients), or 4.8 mg (76 patients), or placebo (77 patients).

The dose was escalated rapidly (monthly) during a 20-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 26-week maintenance phase.

Patients who did not reach the planned dose remained on a lower dose during the maintenance phase.

In terms of actual treatment, during the maintenance phase, 76 patients were taking placebo, 88 patients were taking 0.6 mg survodutide, 92 were taking 2.4 mg survodutide, 71 were taking 3.6 mg survodutide, and 54 were taking 4.8 mg survodutide, all given as weekly subcutaneous injections.

Primary outcome was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 46.

Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who reached a body weight reduction of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% from baseline to week 46.

Mean weight loss at 46 weeks in the planned treatment analysis (where some patients in each group were taking a lower than planned dose during maintenance) was 6.2% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group, 12.5% in the 2.4-mg group, 13.2% in the 3.6-mg group, 14.9% in the 4.8-mg group, and 2.8% in the placebo group.

Among participants who did reach and stay on their assigned dose during the maintenance phase, average weight loss was 6.8% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group,13.6% with 2.4 mg survodutide,16.7% with 3.6 mg survodutide, 18.6% with 4.8 mg survodutide, and 2.0% with placebo.

That is, patients reaching and staying on a weekly subcutaneous dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost 18.6% of their body weight at 46 weeks, Dr. Le Roux emphasized.

In terms of secondary outcomes, in the group of patients with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 83%, 69%, and 55% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

In the group of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 98%, 82%, and 67% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

Moreover, 33% of patients in the group with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide and 38% of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost ≥ 20% of their baseline body weight by week 46.

Adverse events occurred in 91% of patients in the survodutide groups and 75% in the placebo group. The most common side effects were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, which were mostly mild to moderate and mainly occurred during dose escalation. These effects may potentially be mitigated by more gradual dose escalation, Dr. Le Roux said.

There were no unexpected safety or tolerability concerns, and no serious drug-related adverse events.

These “encouraging data” support further study of survodutide for weight loss in larger phase 3 trials, Dr. Le Roux and colleagues conclude.
 

Survodutide has FDA fast track designation for NASH

Survodutide has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fast Track Designation for adults with NASH. The drug is currently being evaluated in a phase 2 study in adults with NASH and stages F1/F2/F3 liver fibrosis, with trial completion expected in the last quarter of 2023.

The current trial was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Le Roux has reported being on an advisory panel for Boehringer Ingelheim and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors are Boehringer Ingelheim employees.

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

SAN DIEGO – Survodutide, a dual glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucagon receptor agonist, led to “striking” weight loss in a phase 2 dosing trial in people with overweight/obesity but without type 2 diabetes.

Close to 40% of people who were taking the highest dose lost 20% or more of their starting weight at 46 weeks, Carel Le Roux, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Zealand Pharma are developing survodutide (formerly BI 456906) to treat obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a company press release.

Glucagon receptor agonism increases energy expenditure, and GLP-1 receptor agonism inhibits appetite, both part of the mechanism of action, Dr. Le Roux, a professor at University College in Dublin, explained.

The trial showed a “striking” and clear dose-response in terms of weight loss, with no new unexpected safety signals, he reported.

Invited to comment, session moderator Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, noted that “Obesity is one of the main risk factors for [type 2] diabetes.”

“It’s very stimulating to see this new medication class make such a big impact on weight loss in such a short amount of time,” Dr. Patorno, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. However, whether the weight loss can be maintained over time remains to be determined in further research, she said.

Head-to-head weight-loss studies of the dual agonist survodutide versus the mono GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy, Novo Nordisk) have not been conducted, Dr. Le Roux said during a press briefing.

“What we don’t know is if somebody doesn’t respond to [weight-loss drug] product A, will they respond to product B?” he said. Because survodutide acts on two types of receptors, “you could argue that you would not only increase the absolute amount of weight but you might also increase the number of patients who would respond, but that’s theoretical at the moment,” he explained.
 

Close to 400 patients, five doses, 46-week endpoint

The researchers randomized 387 adults aged 18-75 who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m² (overweight or obesity) without type 2 diabetes at sites in North America, Europe, Australia/New Zealand, and Asia.

On average, patients were 49 years old with a body weight of 106 kg (234 lb) and a BMI of 37 kg/m², and 68% were women.

They were randomized to receive a planned weekly subcutaneous maintenance survodutide dose of 0.6 mg (76 patients), 2.4 mg (78 patients), 3.6 mg (76 patients), or 4.8 mg (76 patients), or placebo (77 patients).

The dose was escalated rapidly (monthly) during a 20-week dose-escalation phase, followed by a 26-week maintenance phase.

Patients who did not reach the planned dose remained on a lower dose during the maintenance phase.

In terms of actual treatment, during the maintenance phase, 76 patients were taking placebo, 88 patients were taking 0.6 mg survodutide, 92 were taking 2.4 mg survodutide, 71 were taking 3.6 mg survodutide, and 54 were taking 4.8 mg survodutide, all given as weekly subcutaneous injections.

Primary outcome was the percentage change in body weight from baseline to week 46.

Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients who reached a body weight reduction of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% from baseline to week 46.

Mean weight loss at 46 weeks in the planned treatment analysis (where some patients in each group were taking a lower than planned dose during maintenance) was 6.2% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group, 12.5% in the 2.4-mg group, 13.2% in the 3.6-mg group, 14.9% in the 4.8-mg group, and 2.8% in the placebo group.

Among participants who did reach and stay on their assigned dose during the maintenance phase, average weight loss was 6.8% in the 0.6-mg survodutide group,13.6% with 2.4 mg survodutide,16.7% with 3.6 mg survodutide, 18.6% with 4.8 mg survodutide, and 2.0% with placebo.

That is, patients reaching and staying on a weekly subcutaneous dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost 18.6% of their body weight at 46 weeks, Dr. Le Roux emphasized.

In terms of secondary outcomes, in the group of patients with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 83%, 69%, and 55% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

In the group of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide, 98%, 82%, and 67% attained weight loss of ≥ 5%, ≥ 10%, and ≥ 15% of their initial weight, respectively, at 46 weeks.

Moreover, 33% of patients in the group with a planned weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide and 38% of patients with an actual weekly dose of 4.8 mg survodutide lost ≥ 20% of their baseline body weight by week 46.

Adverse events occurred in 91% of patients in the survodutide groups and 75% in the placebo group. The most common side effects were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation, which were mostly mild to moderate and mainly occurred during dose escalation. These effects may potentially be mitigated by more gradual dose escalation, Dr. Le Roux said.

There were no unexpected safety or tolerability concerns, and no serious drug-related adverse events.

These “encouraging data” support further study of survodutide for weight loss in larger phase 3 trials, Dr. Le Roux and colleagues conclude.
 

Survodutide has FDA fast track designation for NASH

Survodutide has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fast Track Designation for adults with NASH. The drug is currently being evaluated in a phase 2 study in adults with NASH and stages F1/F2/F3 liver fibrosis, with trial completion expected in the last quarter of 2023.

The current trial was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Le Roux has reported being on an advisory panel for Boehringer Ingelheim and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Two study authors are Boehringer Ingelheim employees.

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

SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.

Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.

“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.

Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”  
 

Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path

The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.

The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.

Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.

Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.  
 

Safety: No major concerns thus far

Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.

Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”

However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”

Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”

In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.” 

Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. 

The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.

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

SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.

Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.

“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.

Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”  
 

Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path

The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.

The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.

Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.

Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.  
 

Safety: No major concerns thus far

Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.

Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”

However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”

Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”

In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.” 

Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. 

The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.

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

SAN DIEGO – An investigational allogeneic stem cell–derived pancreatic islet cell replacement therapy (VX-880, Vertex Pharmaceuticals) continues to show promise as a treatment for type 1 diabetes, according to the latest data, from six patients thus far.

Two of the six are insulin-independent beyond 1 year after receiving the VX-880 infusions, and three others who received them more recently are on a similar trajectory. One dropped out because of reasons unrelated to the therapy. The remaining five are continuing to receive immunosuppressive treatment to prevent rejection of the islets. The six all had undetectable insulin secretion, impaired hypoglycemic awareness, and severe hypoglycemia as the criterion to enter the phase 1/2 study.

“These new findings demonstrate the potential of stem cell–derived islets as a future treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes, signaling a new era that could potentially remove the need for exogenously administered insulin to achieve glycemic control,” said lead investigator Trevor W. Reichman, MD, PhD, surgical director of Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Reichman presented the data at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, as an update to the report of the first two patients at last year’s ADA meeting. “We are hopeful that this first-of-its-kind research could be a game-changer for the treatment of type 1 diabetes,” he emphasized.

Co-investigator Maria Cristina Nostro, PhD, senior scientist at McEwen Stem Cell Institute, Toronto, told this news organization: “The clinical trial data are extremely exciting ... I think what was very beautiful is the glucose tolerance test where the insulin secretion was almost like a person without type 1 diabetes. For someone who is in the lab doing basic science research ... all the work we’ve put into this, it’s a labor of love. We’ve been trying to generate the cells for so long, and now to see this, it’s fantastic.”  
 

Two meet primary endpoint, three more on the right path

The six patients had a mean age of 44 years and mean 23 years’ diabetes duration. Three each were male and female. Their mean baseline A1c was 8.1%, and fasting C-peptide was undetectable. They had experienced a mean of 3.3 severe hypoglycemia episodes in the year prior to receiving the infusion, which was delivered to the portal vein similarly to the procedure with cadaveric donor islets, Dr. Reichman said.

The first two patients, including the one who dropped out, received half target doses of VX-880 (trial part A), while the rest, enrolled sequentially (part B), were each administered the full target dose of VX-880 given as a single infusion.

Induction with anti-thymocyte globulin and maintenance immunosuppressants, tacrolimus/sirolimus, was used to protect the cells from the recipient’s immune system. After the infusion, all six participants had C-peptide production, reduction in A1c despite reduced insulin use, and no severe hypoglycemia episodes from day 90 onwards.

Both participants with at least a year of follow-up met the criteria for the primary endpoint of A1c less than 7% with no severe hypoglycemic episodes. The first participant had an A1c of 5.3% at month 21, and the second 6.0% at 12 months. Both had sustained glucose-responsive insulin production with a mixed-meal tolerance test and exceeded the ADA target of more than 70% time-in blood glucose range assessed with continuous glucose monitoring.  
 

Safety: No major concerns thus far

Among all six, adverse events included elevations in the liver enzyme transaminase, occurring shortly after VX-880 infusion that were transient and resolved. No serious adverse events were considered related to the therapy.

Regarding safety, Dr. Nostro said, “With this trial, I have no concerns, because they’re using immunosuppression, so should anything go bad, you remove immunosuppression and the cells would be destroyed by the immune system. So it’s a perfect trial in a way.”

However, she noted, “Moving forward, as we develop something that will be genetically modified ... I think this is the future, because if you’re going to treat people with type 1 diabetes, we have to eliminate the immune suppression. I think the concern would be making sure the genetically modified cells are safe.”

Dr. Nostro, who gave an introductory presentation at the beginning of the symposium where the VX-880 data were presented, explained that in a current trial of genetically modified cells, “they’re placing the product inside a device so that the cells would be retrievable. It might not be perfect, but at least it’s going to tell us whether the genetically modified product is safe, which I think is what we need to use.”

In her talk, Dr. Nostro also summarized ongoing work in this field involving efforts to improve the generation of stem cell–derived islets with no “off target” non-beta cells to ensure consistency, optimization of engraftment, and elimination of immunosuppression. “[VX-880] is the beginning. This is the first product that’s going to be in the clinic, but I can imagine how 5, 10 years from now we will have different and more enhanced solutions for type 1 diabetes and who knows, maybe even for type 2.” 

Based on the data so far, the VX-880 trial is now moving to part C, in which 10 concurrently enrolled participants will receive the full target dose of the product. The trial, previously exclusively in the United States, has now expanded to additional sites in Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. 

The study was funded by Vertex. Dr. Reichman is on advisory boards for Vertex and Sernova. Dr. Nostro was a consultant for Sigilon Therapeutics from 2018-2022, currently receives research support from Universal Cells, and has a patent licensed to Sernova.

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