MDedge Endocrinology

Type 2 diabetes patients who had never used insulin showed sustained remission 10 years after bariatric surgery in a prospective study of 85 patients.

Having diabetes for less than 5 years was also predictive of achieving long-term diabetes remission, Diego Moriconi, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and presenting study investigator, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Weight loss was associated with type 2 diabetes remission 1 year after surgery, but it had no impact on the long-term relapse of diabetes,” Dr. Moriconi said.

The findings are important, commented Tina Vilsbøll, MD, DMSc, chief consultant at the Steno Diabetes Centre Copenhagen, who chaired the session. They’re important because they would help “to set the expectations for patients before they have surgery, what to expect in respect to resolution or remission of diabetes.”

If patients were taking insulin, for instance, the take home would seem to be not to expect too much in terms of remission of their diabetes, Dr. Vilsbøll said. She added: “Usually I am not a big fan of [relying on] diabetes duration, because often we know that patients with type 2 diabetes have had diabetes for a long time before they’re actually diagnosed.” However, “it seems to be very important here.”

Dr. Moriconi reported the findings of an observational study that had started in 2006 and recruited individuals about to undergo bariatric surgery for type 2 diabetes. Participants were evaluated before surgery and every 6-12 months after, undergoing various clinical and laboratory investigations, for a period of 10 years.

The majority of the recruited patients (76%) were women. Most (also 76%) had undergone gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y) surgery, and the remainder had undergone sleeve gastrectomy. Both types of surgery were equally as good at getting people into remission, as defined by the American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, Dr. Moriconi said. As such, remission was achieved if the fasting blood glucose fell below 100 mg/dL and the hemoglobin A1c below 5.7%.

In the first year following surgery, 75% of patients had met diabetes remission criteria. This fell to 61% of patients after 5 years, and to 55% at 10 years. At each of these time points, 25% of patients had type 2 diabetes, with 14% relapsing back at 5 years and 20% at 10 years.

Dr. Moriconi pointed out some of the different characteristics of the 47 patients who had achieved diabetes remission at 10 years, compared with the 17 who had “relapsed” back to having type 2 diabetes and the 21 who had remained with type 2 diabetes.

The decrease in body mass index achieved at 10 years was no different between the three groups. However, 1 year after surgery, there had been a significantly greater drop in body in those who achieved remission, compared with those who did not (P = .04).

“Glycemic control improved with time in all the three groups after bariatric surgery, although more markedly so in the remission group,” Dr. Moriconi said.

He highlighted how none of the patients who had achieved remission had used insulin, whereas 12% of those who had relapsed and half (52%) of those who remained with type 2 diabetes had used insulin (P < .0001).

Patients who achieved remission at 1, 5, and 10 years were more likely to have had diabetes for less than 5 years than those who remained with type 2 diabetes. The average duration of diabetes was 2 years in those achieving remission versus 8 years in those who had relapsed and 13 years in those who had remained diabetic (P < .0001).

Logistic regression analysis, which adjusted for all major confounding factors such as age, sex, and type of surgery, showed that only the duration of diabetes and insulin therapy before surgery were the only predictors of long-term diabetes remission.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Moriconi and Dr. Vilsbøll had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Moriconi D. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 120.

Type 2 diabetes patients who had never used insulin showed sustained remission 10 years after bariatric surgery in a prospective study of 85 patients.

Having diabetes for less than 5 years was also predictive of achieving long-term diabetes remission, Diego Moriconi, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and presenting study investigator, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Weight loss was associated with type 2 diabetes remission 1 year after surgery, but it had no impact on the long-term relapse of diabetes,” Dr. Moriconi said.

The findings are important, commented Tina Vilsbøll, MD, DMSc, chief consultant at the Steno Diabetes Centre Copenhagen, who chaired the session. They’re important because they would help “to set the expectations for patients before they have surgery, what to expect in respect to resolution or remission of diabetes.”

If patients were taking insulin, for instance, the take home would seem to be not to expect too much in terms of remission of their diabetes, Dr. Vilsbøll said. She added: “Usually I am not a big fan of [relying on] diabetes duration, because often we know that patients with type 2 diabetes have had diabetes for a long time before they’re actually diagnosed.” However, “it seems to be very important here.”

Dr. Moriconi reported the findings of an observational study that had started in 2006 and recruited individuals about to undergo bariatric surgery for type 2 diabetes. Participants were evaluated before surgery and every 6-12 months after, undergoing various clinical and laboratory investigations, for a period of 10 years.

The majority of the recruited patients (76%) were women. Most (also 76%) had undergone gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y) surgery, and the remainder had undergone sleeve gastrectomy. Both types of surgery were equally as good at getting people into remission, as defined by the American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, Dr. Moriconi said. As such, remission was achieved if the fasting blood glucose fell below 100 mg/dL and the hemoglobin A1c below 5.7%.

In the first year following surgery, 75% of patients had met diabetes remission criteria. This fell to 61% of patients after 5 years, and to 55% at 10 years. At each of these time points, 25% of patients had type 2 diabetes, with 14% relapsing back at 5 years and 20% at 10 years.

Dr. Moriconi pointed out some of the different characteristics of the 47 patients who had achieved diabetes remission at 10 years, compared with the 17 who had “relapsed” back to having type 2 diabetes and the 21 who had remained with type 2 diabetes.

The decrease in body mass index achieved at 10 years was no different between the three groups. However, 1 year after surgery, there had been a significantly greater drop in body in those who achieved remission, compared with those who did not (P = .04).

“Glycemic control improved with time in all the three groups after bariatric surgery, although more markedly so in the remission group,” Dr. Moriconi said.

He highlighted how none of the patients who had achieved remission had used insulin, whereas 12% of those who had relapsed and half (52%) of those who remained with type 2 diabetes had used insulin (P < .0001).

Patients who achieved remission at 1, 5, and 10 years were more likely to have had diabetes for less than 5 years than those who remained with type 2 diabetes. The average duration of diabetes was 2 years in those achieving remission versus 8 years in those who had relapsed and 13 years in those who had remained diabetic (P < .0001).

Logistic regression analysis, which adjusted for all major confounding factors such as age, sex, and type of surgery, showed that only the duration of diabetes and insulin therapy before surgery were the only predictors of long-term diabetes remission.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Moriconi and Dr. Vilsbøll had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Moriconi D. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 120.

Type 2 diabetes patients who had never used insulin showed sustained remission 10 years after bariatric surgery in a prospective study of 85 patients.

Having diabetes for less than 5 years was also predictive of achieving long-term diabetes remission, Diego Moriconi, MD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and presenting study investigator, reported at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“Weight loss was associated with type 2 diabetes remission 1 year after surgery, but it had no impact on the long-term relapse of diabetes,” Dr. Moriconi said.

The findings are important, commented Tina Vilsbøll, MD, DMSc, chief consultant at the Steno Diabetes Centre Copenhagen, who chaired the session. They’re important because they would help “to set the expectations for patients before they have surgery, what to expect in respect to resolution or remission of diabetes.”

If patients were taking insulin, for instance, the take home would seem to be not to expect too much in terms of remission of their diabetes, Dr. Vilsbøll said. She added: “Usually I am not a big fan of [relying on] diabetes duration, because often we know that patients with type 2 diabetes have had diabetes for a long time before they’re actually diagnosed.” However, “it seems to be very important here.”

Dr. Moriconi reported the findings of an observational study that had started in 2006 and recruited individuals about to undergo bariatric surgery for type 2 diabetes. Participants were evaluated before surgery and every 6-12 months after, undergoing various clinical and laboratory investigations, for a period of 10 years.

The majority of the recruited patients (76%) were women. Most (also 76%) had undergone gastric bypass (Roux-en-Y) surgery, and the remainder had undergone sleeve gastrectomy. Both types of surgery were equally as good at getting people into remission, as defined by the American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, Dr. Moriconi said. As such, remission was achieved if the fasting blood glucose fell below 100 mg/dL and the hemoglobin A1c below 5.7%.

In the first year following surgery, 75% of patients had met diabetes remission criteria. This fell to 61% of patients after 5 years, and to 55% at 10 years. At each of these time points, 25% of patients had type 2 diabetes, with 14% relapsing back at 5 years and 20% at 10 years.

Dr. Moriconi pointed out some of the different characteristics of the 47 patients who had achieved diabetes remission at 10 years, compared with the 17 who had “relapsed” back to having type 2 diabetes and the 21 who had remained with type 2 diabetes.

The decrease in body mass index achieved at 10 years was no different between the three groups. However, 1 year after surgery, there had been a significantly greater drop in body in those who achieved remission, compared with those who did not (P = .04).

“Glycemic control improved with time in all the three groups after bariatric surgery, although more markedly so in the remission group,” Dr. Moriconi said.

He highlighted how none of the patients who had achieved remission had used insulin, whereas 12% of those who had relapsed and half (52%) of those who remained with type 2 diabetes had used insulin (P < .0001).

Patients who achieved remission at 1, 5, and 10 years were more likely to have had diabetes for less than 5 years than those who remained with type 2 diabetes. The average duration of diabetes was 2 years in those achieving remission versus 8 years in those who had relapsed and 13 years in those who had remained diabetic (P < .0001).

Logistic regression analysis, which adjusted for all major confounding factors such as age, sex, and type of surgery, showed that only the duration of diabetes and insulin therapy before surgery were the only predictors of long-term diabetes remission.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Moriconi and Dr. Vilsbøll had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Moriconi D. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 120.

Not only the prevalence, but the impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing in much of the world, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said in a virtual presentation at the meeting jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education. “It is currently estimated that the number of people living with cirrhosis or with decompensated cirrhosis will increase two- to threefold from 2015 to 2030,” which underlines the public health impact and the need for improved treatment paradigms, he emphasized.

“The thing to remember about NAFLD is that it does not exist in a vacuum,” Dr. Sanyal said. NAFLD is a multisystem disorder. Most patients have concomitant cardiovascular disease, but others may have type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, all of which are now accepted as risk factors for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), he said.

“What ties these conditions together is metabolic stress leading to systemic inflammation and fibrosis. This is primarily due to diet-induced obesity. If you think about treating all of these competing risks to the patient’s life, the optimal way is to treat the root cause,” he said.

Various options exist to manage the conditions that can lead to NASH, but several of these also appear promising as a treatment of NASH, Dr. Sanyal said. Glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have been shown to improve multiple outcomes of interest in type 2 diabetes. However, insulin can cause weight gain at the expense of controlling HbA1C levels, he said.

Bariatric surgery can improve histology, but many patients with advanced fibrosis do not demonstrate improvement in fibrosis. Also, bariatric surgery has its own associated morbidity, including an increased suicide rate across multiple studies, Dr. Sanyal noted.

A new and interesting option is duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) “a novel, minimally invasive outpatient upper-endoscopic procedure,” said Dr. Sanyal. DMR involves use of a catheter to perform a submucosal lift and hydrothermal mucosal ablation, prompting healthy epithelial regrowth, he explained. “The mucosa sloughs off, fresh epithelium grows in, and the hormonal signal from the gut to the rest of the body is restored to a more normal pattern,” he noted.

In the REVITA-2 study of patients with diabetes and NAFLD, the average fat loss was 5.4% in those randomized to DMR vs. 2.4% in sham-procedure patients and represented “quite significant defatting of the liver,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Dr. Sanyal then focused on fatty liver disease. “The first step when you see a patient with fatty liver disease is to see how scarred is the liver, and whether the patient has silent cirrhosis. The more scarred the liver, the greater risk of liver-related outcomes,” he said. The goal of therapy for these patients is to reduce the risk of progression to cirrhosis, he added. Dr. Sanyal recommended evaluating fibrosis using the Fibrosis 4 score (Fib4). “If the Fib4 is less than 1.3, the likelihood of significant scarring in the liver is less than 10%,” he said. On the other hand, a Fib4 greater than 2.67 suggests advanced fibrosis, he noted.

Overall, the goals of treatment for NASH patients are to prevent cirrhosis, reduce decompensation, and prevent hepatocellular carcinoma, said Dr. Sanyal.

“The ideal drug for NASH should also help other end organs, or at least be neutral,” said Dr. Sanyal.

Current frontline therapies for precirrhotic NASH include thiazolidinediones (TZD), farnesoid X receptor (FXR)/fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF-19), FGF21, thyroxine B-R, and glucagonlike peptide-1. Clinical evidence varies based on different populations, endpoints, assessment methods, and treatment duration, he said.

Looking ahead to the next decade, a NASH management paradigm will likely play out that can be applied in the clinic today, Dr. Sanyal said. First, make an initial assessment of the status of the end organs. Start with a weight-loss regimen; use statins and GLP-1 and SGLT2 inhibitors as needed. Follow and reassess, and if the patient still has disease, progress to targeted therapy for active NASH while continuing to encourage weight loss and healthy living, he said.

“The ultimate proof that what we are doing is working is that we are improving mortality, reducing health care costs, and improving patients’ function and quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Sanyal is president of Sanyal Biotechnologies. He also disclosed stock options for Durect, Exhalenz, Galmed, Genfit, Immuton, Indalo, and Tiziana, as well as various relationships with Allergan, AMRA, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Birdrock, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Echosense, GE, Genentech, Gilead, Hemoshear, IFMO, Innovate, Intercept, Lilly, Lipocine, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OWL, Pfizer, RedX, Sundise, Tern, and Zydus.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Not only the prevalence, but the impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing in much of the world, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said in a virtual presentation at the meeting jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education. “It is currently estimated that the number of people living with cirrhosis or with decompensated cirrhosis will increase two- to threefold from 2015 to 2030,” which underlines the public health impact and the need for improved treatment paradigms, he emphasized.

“The thing to remember about NAFLD is that it does not exist in a vacuum,” Dr. Sanyal said. NAFLD is a multisystem disorder. Most patients have concomitant cardiovascular disease, but others may have type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, all of which are now accepted as risk factors for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), he said.

“What ties these conditions together is metabolic stress leading to systemic inflammation and fibrosis. This is primarily due to diet-induced obesity. If you think about treating all of these competing risks to the patient’s life, the optimal way is to treat the root cause,” he said.

Various options exist to manage the conditions that can lead to NASH, but several of these also appear promising as a treatment of NASH, Dr. Sanyal said. Glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have been shown to improve multiple outcomes of interest in type 2 diabetes. However, insulin can cause weight gain at the expense of controlling HbA1C levels, he said.

Bariatric surgery can improve histology, but many patients with advanced fibrosis do not demonstrate improvement in fibrosis. Also, bariatric surgery has its own associated morbidity, including an increased suicide rate across multiple studies, Dr. Sanyal noted.

A new and interesting option is duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) “a novel, minimally invasive outpatient upper-endoscopic procedure,” said Dr. Sanyal. DMR involves use of a catheter to perform a submucosal lift and hydrothermal mucosal ablation, prompting healthy epithelial regrowth, he explained. “The mucosa sloughs off, fresh epithelium grows in, and the hormonal signal from the gut to the rest of the body is restored to a more normal pattern,” he noted.

In the REVITA-2 study of patients with diabetes and NAFLD, the average fat loss was 5.4% in those randomized to DMR vs. 2.4% in sham-procedure patients and represented “quite significant defatting of the liver,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Dr. Sanyal then focused on fatty liver disease. “The first step when you see a patient with fatty liver disease is to see how scarred is the liver, and whether the patient has silent cirrhosis. The more scarred the liver, the greater risk of liver-related outcomes,” he said. The goal of therapy for these patients is to reduce the risk of progression to cirrhosis, he added. Dr. Sanyal recommended evaluating fibrosis using the Fibrosis 4 score (Fib4). “If the Fib4 is less than 1.3, the likelihood of significant scarring in the liver is less than 10%,” he said. On the other hand, a Fib4 greater than 2.67 suggests advanced fibrosis, he noted.

Overall, the goals of treatment for NASH patients are to prevent cirrhosis, reduce decompensation, and prevent hepatocellular carcinoma, said Dr. Sanyal.

“The ideal drug for NASH should also help other end organs, or at least be neutral,” said Dr. Sanyal.

Current frontline therapies for precirrhotic NASH include thiazolidinediones (TZD), farnesoid X receptor (FXR)/fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF-19), FGF21, thyroxine B-R, and glucagonlike peptide-1. Clinical evidence varies based on different populations, endpoints, assessment methods, and treatment duration, he said.

Looking ahead to the next decade, a NASH management paradigm will likely play out that can be applied in the clinic today, Dr. Sanyal said. First, make an initial assessment of the status of the end organs. Start with a weight-loss regimen; use statins and GLP-1 and SGLT2 inhibitors as needed. Follow and reassess, and if the patient still has disease, progress to targeted therapy for active NASH while continuing to encourage weight loss and healthy living, he said.

“The ultimate proof that what we are doing is working is that we are improving mortality, reducing health care costs, and improving patients’ function and quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Sanyal is president of Sanyal Biotechnologies. He also disclosed stock options for Durect, Exhalenz, Galmed, Genfit, Immuton, Indalo, and Tiziana, as well as various relationships with Allergan, AMRA, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Birdrock, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Echosense, GE, Genentech, Gilead, Hemoshear, IFMO, Innovate, Intercept, Lilly, Lipocine, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OWL, Pfizer, RedX, Sundise, Tern, and Zydus.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Not only the prevalence, but the impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing in much of the world, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said in a virtual presentation at the meeting jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education. “It is currently estimated that the number of people living with cirrhosis or with decompensated cirrhosis will increase two- to threefold from 2015 to 2030,” which underlines the public health impact and the need for improved treatment paradigms, he emphasized.

“The thing to remember about NAFLD is that it does not exist in a vacuum,” Dr. Sanyal said. NAFLD is a multisystem disorder. Most patients have concomitant cardiovascular disease, but others may have type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, all of which are now accepted as risk factors for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), he said.

“What ties these conditions together is metabolic stress leading to systemic inflammation and fibrosis. This is primarily due to diet-induced obesity. If you think about treating all of these competing risks to the patient’s life, the optimal way is to treat the root cause,” he said.

Various options exist to manage the conditions that can lead to NASH, but several of these also appear promising as a treatment of NASH, Dr. Sanyal said. Glucagonlike peptide–1 agonists and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors have been shown to improve multiple outcomes of interest in type 2 diabetes. However, insulin can cause weight gain at the expense of controlling HbA1C levels, he said.

Bariatric surgery can improve histology, but many patients with advanced fibrosis do not demonstrate improvement in fibrosis. Also, bariatric surgery has its own associated morbidity, including an increased suicide rate across multiple studies, Dr. Sanyal noted.

A new and interesting option is duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) “a novel, minimally invasive outpatient upper-endoscopic procedure,” said Dr. Sanyal. DMR involves use of a catheter to perform a submucosal lift and hydrothermal mucosal ablation, prompting healthy epithelial regrowth, he explained. “The mucosa sloughs off, fresh epithelium grows in, and the hormonal signal from the gut to the rest of the body is restored to a more normal pattern,” he noted.

In the REVITA-2 study of patients with diabetes and NAFLD, the average fat loss was 5.4% in those randomized to DMR vs. 2.4% in sham-procedure patients and represented “quite significant defatting of the liver,” Dr. Sanyal said.

Dr. Sanyal then focused on fatty liver disease. “The first step when you see a patient with fatty liver disease is to see how scarred is the liver, and whether the patient has silent cirrhosis. The more scarred the liver, the greater risk of liver-related outcomes,” he said. The goal of therapy for these patients is to reduce the risk of progression to cirrhosis, he added. Dr. Sanyal recommended evaluating fibrosis using the Fibrosis 4 score (Fib4). “If the Fib4 is less than 1.3, the likelihood of significant scarring in the liver is less than 10%,” he said. On the other hand, a Fib4 greater than 2.67 suggests advanced fibrosis, he noted.

Overall, the goals of treatment for NASH patients are to prevent cirrhosis, reduce decompensation, and prevent hepatocellular carcinoma, said Dr. Sanyal.

“The ideal drug for NASH should also help other end organs, or at least be neutral,” said Dr. Sanyal.

Current frontline therapies for precirrhotic NASH include thiazolidinediones (TZD), farnesoid X receptor (FXR)/fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF-19), FGF21, thyroxine B-R, and glucagonlike peptide-1. Clinical evidence varies based on different populations, endpoints, assessment methods, and treatment duration, he said.

Looking ahead to the next decade, a NASH management paradigm will likely play out that can be applied in the clinic today, Dr. Sanyal said. First, make an initial assessment of the status of the end organs. Start with a weight-loss regimen; use statins and GLP-1 and SGLT2 inhibitors as needed. Follow and reassess, and if the patient still has disease, progress to targeted therapy for active NASH while continuing to encourage weight loss and healthy living, he said.

“The ultimate proof that what we are doing is working is that we are improving mortality, reducing health care costs, and improving patients’ function and quality of life,” he concluded.

Dr. Sanyal is president of Sanyal Biotechnologies. He also disclosed stock options for Durect, Exhalenz, Galmed, Genfit, Immuton, Indalo, and Tiziana, as well as various relationships with Allergan, AMRA, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Birdrock, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Echosense, GE, Genentech, Gilead, Hemoshear, IFMO, Innovate, Intercept, Lilly, Lipocine, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, OWL, Pfizer, RedX, Sundise, Tern, and Zydus.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

States have begun preparing to distribute a COVID-19 vaccine if one is approved, a CDC official said today.

The CDC released guidance for states on Sept. 16 titled COVID-19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations. The document discusses vaccine ordering, storage, and handling and says that states should submit their plans for vaccine distribution to the agency by Oct. 16.

“Every jurisdiction is heavily involved right now in their plan development,” CDC official Janell Routh, MD, told the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices during its Sept. 22 meeting. “It was really impressive to me that, even though the playbook only went out last week, states and jurisdictions have been thinking about this for quite some time.”

However, one committee member suggested that setting a deadline before more safety, efficacy, and storage information is known may be premature.

“I cannot imagine that we will actually know the final storage requirements for this vaccine by Oct. 16, which makes me a little concerned about finalizing state plans,” said Helen “Keipp” Talbot, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. “We also don’t know the best populations yet when it comes to efficacy and safety.”

Dr. Routh said the CDC is asking states to plan on the basis of assumptions. “We know those plans will constantly be improving, changing, as we learn more information,” Dr. Routh said. States agreed to return a plan 30 days after the playbook was released, which is how the Oct. 16 deadline was established, she said.

States are encouraged to think broadly. Plans may include contingencies for a product that requires ultracold storage or for distributing more than one vaccine product, Dr. Routh said.

“One goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during the meeting. “Our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November, and therefore we need to be ready so there is no delay in distributing that vaccine. And that phase, that early phase, is really close upon us.”

Many states have already developed plans, and the CDC is providing technical assistance as needed to monitor the plans regularly, Dr. Routh said.
 

Key issues identified

From holding pilot meetings with five jurisdictions, officials learned that public confidence in the vaccine is among states’ greatest concerns, Dr. Routh said. In addition, distribution is resource intensive, and social distancing adds logistical complexity.

Specific guidance on whom to vaccinate in the early stages will smooth the process, officials suggested during the pilot meetings. For the first several weeks, vaccine doses may be limited to priority populations, such as health care workers.

“This interim playbook is a living document,” Dr. Routh emphasized. “We definitely plan to update the content regularly as we learn more information about what vaccines and when they will be released.”

During the early stages of COVID-19 vaccination, officials plan to implement an enhanced monitoring program in which vaccine recipients would complete surveys about adverse events, in addition to the traditional vaccine safety monitoring programs that already exist, officials said.
 

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

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with hypothyroidism who underwent treatment with desiccated thyroid, there were no significant differences in the time spent in normal ranges of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) over 3 years, compared with patients who received the standard therapy of synthetic levothyroxine (T4), new research shows.

The findings are “unanticipated ... given concerns for variability between batches of desiccated thyroid cited by national guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study, which was published this month in the Annals of Family Medicine.

In the trial, patients who had been treated for hypothyroidism at Kaiser Permanente Colorado were matched retrospectively into groups of 450 patients each according to whether they were treated with desiccated thyroid or synthetic levothyroxine.

After a follow-up of 3 years, TSH values within normal ranges (0.320-5.500 uIU/mL) were seen at approximately the same rate among those treated with desiccated thyroid and those who received levothyroxine (79.1% vs. 79.3%; P = .905).

“This study showed that after 3 years TSH values in both groups remained within reference ranges approximately 80% of the time,” said Rolake Kuye, PharmD, and colleagues with Kaiser Permanente, in Denver, Colorado.

In an accompanying editorial, Jill Schneiderhan, MD, and Suzanna Zick, ND, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, say the overall results indicate that the continued use of desiccated thyroid is warranted in some cases.

“Keeping desiccated thyroid medications as an option in our tool kit will allow for improved shared decision-making, while allowing for patient preference, and offer an option for those patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine monotherapy,” they advised.
 

Some variability still seen with desiccated thyroid

Desiccated thyroid (dehydrated porcine thyroid), which was long the standard of care, is still commonly used in the treatment of hypothyroidism, despite having been replaced beginning in the 1970s by synthetic levothyroxine in light of evidence that the former was associated with more variability in thyroid hormone levels.

Desiccated thyroid is still sold legally by prescription in the United States under the names Nature Thyroid, Thyroid USP, and Armour Thyroid and is currently used by up to 30% of patients with hypothyroidism, according to recent estimates.

Consistent with concerns about variability in thyroid hormone levels, the new study did show greater variability in TSH levels with desiccated thyroid when assessed on a visit-to-visit basis.

Dr. Kuye and coauthors therefore recommended that, “[f]or providers targeting a tighter TSH goal in certain patients, the decreased TSH variability with levothyroxine could be clinically meaningful.”
 

This long-term investigation is “much needed”

This new study adds important new insight to the ongoing debate over hypothyroidism treatment, said Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick in their editorial.

“[The study authors] begin a much-needed investigation into whether patients prescribed synthetic levothyroxine compared with desiccated thyroid had differences in TSH stability over the course of 3 years.

“Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore differences in more diverse patient populations, such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, as well as on quality of life and other important patient-reported outcomes such as fatigue and weight gain,” the editorialists added.

“This study does, however, provide helpful information that desiccated thyroid products are a reasonable choice for treating some hypothyroid patients.”
 

For 60% of patients in both groups, TSH levels were within reference range for whole study

In the study, Dr. Kuye and colleagues matched patients (average age, 63 years; 90% women) in terms of characteristics such as race, comorbidities, and cholesterol levels.

Patients were excluded if they had been prescribed more than one agent for the treatment of hypothyroidism or if they had comorbid conditions, including a history of thyroid cancer or other related comorbidities, as well as pregnancy.

With respect to visit-to-visit TSH level variability, the lower rate among patients prescribed levothyroxine in comparison with patients prescribed desiccated thyroid was statistically significant (1.25 vs. 1.44; P = .015). Among 60% of patients in both groups, all TSH values measured during the study period were within reference ranges, however (P = .951).

The median number of TSH laboratory studies obtained during the study was four in the synthetic levothyroxine group and three for patients prescribed desiccated thyroid (P = .578).

There were some notable differences between the groups. Patients in the desiccated thyroid group had lower body mass index (P = .032), hemoglobin A1c levels (P = .041), and lower baseline TSH values (2.4 vs. 3.4 uIU/mL; P = .001). compared with those prescribed levothyroxine.

Limitations include the fact that the authors could not account for potentially important variables such as rates of adherence, differences in prescriber practice between agents, or the concurrent use of other medications.
 

Subjective outcomes not assessed: “One-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work”

The authors note they were not able to assess subjective outcomes, which, as noted by the editorialists, are particularly important in hypothyroidism.

“Emerging evidence shows that for many patients, symptoms persist despite normal TSH values,” Dr. Schneiderhan and Dr. Zick write.

They cite as an example a large study that found significant impairment in psychological well-being among patients treated with thyroxine replacement, despite their achieving normal TSH levels.

In addition, synthetic levothyroxine is associated with other uncertainties, such as complexities in the conversion of T4 to triiodothyronine (T3) that may disrupt thyroid metabolism in some patients.

In addition, there are differences in the amounts of thyroid replacement needed by certain groups, such as patients who have undergone thyroidectomies.

“The one-size-fits-all approach for treating hypothyroidism does not work ... for all patients,” they concluded.

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Phase 2 data for the investigational, once-weekly basal insulin analog icodec (Novo Nordisk) showing comparable efficacy and safety to once-daily insulin glargine U100 have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Insulin icodec could potentially improve acceptance and likely would facilitate management in type 2 diabetes patients needing basal insulin, and I think it will be transformational in the way we manage people with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin,” said lead author Julio Rosenstock, MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, who also presented the data at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Insulin icodec binds to albumin to create a circulating depot with a 196-hour (8.1 days) half-life, so the once-weekly injection is designed to cover an individual’s basal insulin requirements for a full week, with steady insulin release. Because of its concentrated formulation, its injection volume is equivalent to that of daily glargine U100.

In the 26-week, randomized, phase 2 trial involving 247 insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec’s glucose-lowering and safety profiles were similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100. These results were previously presented by Dr. Rosenstock in June at the virtual American Diabetes Association conference, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

In addition, new data in a poster at EASD 2020 showed that switching to icodec from other basal insulins is efficacious without causing significant hypoglycemia, as reported by Harpreet Bajaj, MD, MPH, director of the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

Charles M. Alexander, MD, an endocrinologist and managing director of Alexander Associates, Gwynedd Valley, Pa., said in an interview that “some patients will find once-weekly basal insulin an attractive option, while other patients will be indifferent to its availability.”

Dr. Alexander also pointed out that “payers are not going to be very interested in paying for a once-weekly basal insulin when daily basal insulins have been available for many years, unless the cost is the same or less. Resource-constrained health plans will wait until the price is [similar].”
 

The phase 2 study: Once weekly is just as good as daily

In the phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, the patients had baseline hemoglobin A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% despite taking metformin, with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor.

They were randomized to weekly insulin icodec plus daily placebo (n = 125) or daily insulin glargine U100 plus weekly placebo (n = 122). The primary endpoint, change in A1c from baseline to week 26, dropped 1.33 percentage points with icodec and 1.15 percentage points with glargine, down to 6.7% and 6.9%, respectively. The difference wasn’t significant (P = .08). Fasting plasma glucose levels dropped by 58 mg/dL with icodec and 54 mg/dL with glargine (P = .34).

Time in range (70-140 mg/dL or 3.9-7.8 mmol/L) as assessed by flash glucose monitoring (FreeStyle Libre Pro) was greater with Icodec, by 5.4 percentage points, corresponding to an extra 78 minutes per day in range.

Mild hypoglycemia was more common with icodec than glargine (509 vs. 211 events per 100 patient-years, but rates of moderate/clinically significant hypoglycemia (52.5 vs. 46 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and severe hypoglycemia (1.4 vs. 0 per 100 patient-years) did not differ significantly (P = .85).

And the duration of hypoglycemia wasn’t longer with icodec, compared with glargine, despite its longer duration of action, Dr. Rosenstock emphasized.

Rates of other adverse events were similar between the groups.

Use of a once-weekly basal insulin could reduce the number of annual insulin injections from 365 to just 52, the authors noted in their paper.
 

New data: Switching to icodec is effective, safe

The new data on switching came from a 16-week, open-label, phase 2 trial of 154 patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control (mean A1c 7.9%) while taking oral medication and basal insulin. They were randomized to once-weekly icodec with or without an initial loading dose, or once-daily glargine U100.

Insulin doses were titrated weekly based on blood glucose levels as measured by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6).

The primary endpoint, time in range (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) during weeks 15-16 was significantly better for icodec plus loading dose, compared with glargine U100 (72.9% vs 65.0%, P = .01) and similar between icodec and glargine U100 (66.0% vs 65.0%, P = .75).

Estimated mean percentage point reductions in A1c were 0.77 for icodec plus loading dose, 0.47 for icodec without the loading dose, and 0.54 for glargine U100.

Rates of moderate to severe hypoglycemia were similar between icodec plus loading dose and glargine U100 (78.0 and 79.4 events per 100 patient-years, respectively), and lower for icodec without the loading dose (14.8/100 patient-years).

There were no unexpected safety findings.

Novo Nordisk’s phase 3 trial for icodec is set to begin in late November.

The company is also developing a coformulation of icodec with its glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist semaglutide, currently in phase 1 testing. Meanwhile, Eli Lilly is also developing a once-weekly basal analog, LY3209590, currently in phase 2 trials.

Dr. Rosenstock reported receiving research support from, being on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Genentech, Oramed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Applied Therapeutics, and Intarcia. Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As may be expected, lifestyle risk factors, including physical activity and diet, are found to be more influential in determining type 2 diabetes risk within a married couple than physiologic factors such as glucose tolerance or insulin sensitivity, researchers have shown.

“Essentially, these data suggest that couple-based interventions targeting spouses’ similarities might be [an] efficient way of delivering lifestyle interventions,” said study lead Omar Silverman-Retana, MD, PhD.

“We identified that spousal concordance was strongest for behavioral risk factors, in particular physical activity and diet,” he told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

Silverman-Retana, of Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, reported the findings in a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), held online because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Effectively, concordance was found to be weaker in the pathophysiologic markers because these are more biologically determined compared with lifestyle factors.

Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, PhD, is a marital biobehavioral researcher who is interested in spousal concordance for many chronic health conditions.

This “research is part of a growing body of evidence that carries a clear message: Be careful whom you marry, your life may depend on it!” she explained.

“Your partner’s behavior definitely influences your own, and in the case of diabetes, the researchers have found clear behavioral links, and those make sense,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“In addition, data from our lab and others show that the gut microbiomes of cohabiting couples are more similar than those of unrelated pairs,” noted Kiecolt-Glaser, who is professor of psychiatry and behavioral Health at Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus.

“Diet and exercise both have substantial influences on the gut microbiome, and there is growing evidence that the gut microbiome contributes to risk for diabetes. This research fits with, and extends, what we know.”
 

A comprehensive picture of mechanisms leading to diabetes

The research led by Silverman-Retana and colleagues comprised a cross-sectional analysis of couples who participated in The Maastricht Study, an extensive phenotyping trial that focuses on the causes of type 2 diabetes, its classic complications, and its emerging comorbidities.

The researchers measured a comprehensive list of lifestyle and physiologic indicators, and using the social network aspect of the study, identified 172 couples with complete information for the final analysis.

Spousal concordance in lifestyle factors and pathophysiologic mechanisms of type 2 diabetes, including beta cell function and insulin sensitivity, were determined using regression analysis. Risk factors included waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, sedentary time, the Dutch Healthy Diet Index (DHDI), and total energy consumption.

In addition, the researchers assessed glucose metabolism status using fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose, as well as HbA1c, and they also derived beta cell function indices using a seven-time point glucose tolerance test, and insulin sensitivity.

“Most importantly, we measured risk factors and pathophysiologic factors in the same study, and to the same level of detail in both partners, providing a more comprehensive picture of the mechanisms that lead to type 2 diabetes,” Silverman-Retana highlighted.

There have been previous studies addressing disease risk and couples’ concordance. A prior study, also by Silverman-Retana and colleagues at Aarhus University, found a link between the weight of one spouse and the chances of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in the other spouse.

Another study, reported by Medscape Medical News  in 2018, showed that when one spouse tried to lose weight with a weight management program, the other ‘untreated’ spouse was also likely to drop some weight.

Silverman-Retana noted that other research examining the similarities and differences within couples has investigated physical activity using self-reported questionnaires, but the current study used accelerometer data.  “These provide a more precise measure of physical activity,” he said, in pointing out one way in which the new study differs from previous ones. 

The findings suggest that for men, the strongest spousal concordance was for the Dutch Healthy Diet Index (DHDI), meaning that a one unit increase in wives’ DHDI was associated with a 0.53 unit difference in the men’s DHDI.

For women, the strongest concordance was for the time spent in high intensity physical activity, such that a one unit increase in husbands’ time spent in high intensity physical activity was associated with a 0.36 unit difference in women’s time spent in high intensity physical activity.

“If we compare the concordance, it weakens as we move downstream to the immediate causal risk factors of type 2 diabetes,” explained Silverman-Retana. “The weakest concordance was found in beta cell function indices and glucose metabolism indicators because these are more biologically determined.”

Concordance is mainly explained by the fact that we tend to choose a partner who has similar characteristics to our own, in terms of social class and/or educational level, smoking status, exercise habits and diet, explained the researcher.

“It would be interesting to know how behavioral similarity depends on the length of marriage or time as a couple. Future studies will need to look into this,” he concluded.   

Silverman-Retana and Kiecolt-Glaser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As may be expected, lifestyle risk factors, including physical activity and diet, are found to be more influential in determining type 2 diabetes risk within a married couple than physiologic factors such as glucose tolerance or insulin sensitivity, researchers have shown.

“Essentially, these data suggest that couple-based interventions targeting spouses’ similarities might be [an] efficient way of delivering lifestyle interventions,” said study lead Omar Silverman-Retana, MD, PhD.

“We identified that spousal concordance was strongest for behavioral risk factors, in particular physical activity and diet,” he told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

Silverman-Retana, of Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, reported the findings in a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), held online because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Effectively, concordance was found to be weaker in the pathophysiologic markers because these are more biologically determined compared with lifestyle factors.

Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, PhD, is a marital biobehavioral researcher who is interested in spousal concordance for many chronic health conditions.

This “research is part of a growing body of evidence that carries a clear message: Be careful whom you marry, your life may depend on it!” she explained.

“Your partner’s behavior definitely influences your own, and in the case of diabetes, the researchers have found clear behavioral links, and those make sense,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“In addition, data from our lab and others show that the gut microbiomes of cohabiting couples are more similar than those of unrelated pairs,” noted Kiecolt-Glaser, who is professor of psychiatry and behavioral Health at Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus.

“Diet and exercise both have substantial influences on the gut microbiome, and there is growing evidence that the gut microbiome contributes to risk for diabetes. This research fits with, and extends, what we know.”
 

A comprehensive picture of mechanisms leading to diabetes

The research led by Silverman-Retana and colleagues comprised a cross-sectional analysis of couples who participated in The Maastricht Study, an extensive phenotyping trial that focuses on the causes of type 2 diabetes, its classic complications, and its emerging comorbidities.

The researchers measured a comprehensive list of lifestyle and physiologic indicators, and using the social network aspect of the study, identified 172 couples with complete information for the final analysis.

Spousal concordance in lifestyle factors and pathophysiologic mechanisms of type 2 diabetes, including beta cell function and insulin sensitivity, were determined using regression analysis. Risk factors included waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, sedentary time, the Dutch Healthy Diet Index (DHDI), and total energy consumption.

In addition, the researchers assessed glucose metabolism status using fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose, as well as HbA1c, and they also derived beta cell function indices using a seven-time point glucose tolerance test, and insulin sensitivity.

“Most importantly, we measured risk factors and pathophysiologic factors in the same study, and to the same level of detail in both partners, providing a more comprehensive picture of the mechanisms that lead to type 2 diabetes,” Silverman-Retana highlighted.

There have been previous studies addressing disease risk and couples’ concordance. A prior study, also by Silverman-Retana and colleagues at Aarhus University, found a link between the weight of one spouse and the chances of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in the other spouse.

Another study, reported by Medscape Medical News  in 2018, showed that when one spouse tried to lose weight with a weight management program, the other ‘untreated’ spouse was also likely to drop some weight.

Silverman-Retana noted that other research examining the similarities and differences within couples has investigated physical activity using self-reported questionnaires, but the current study used accelerometer data.  “These provide a more precise measure of physical activity,” he said, in pointing out one way in which the new study differs from previous ones. 

The findings suggest that for men, the strongest spousal concordance was for the Dutch Healthy Diet Index (DHDI), meaning that a one unit increase in wives’ DHDI was associated with a 0.53 unit difference in the men’s DHDI.

For women, the strongest concordance was for the time spent in high intensity physical activity, such that a one unit increase in husbands’ time spent in high intensity physical activity was associated with a 0.36 unit difference in women’s time spent in high intensity physical activity.

“If we compare the concordance, it weakens as we move downstream to the immediate causal risk factors of type 2 diabetes,” explained Silverman-Retana. “The weakest concordance was found in beta cell function indices and glucose metabolism indicators because these are more biologically determined.”

Concordance is mainly explained by the fact that we tend to choose a partner who has similar characteristics to our own, in terms of social class and/or educational level, smoking status, exercise habits and diet, explained the researcher.

“It would be interesting to know how behavioral similarity depends on the length of marriage or time as a couple. Future studies will need to look into this,” he concluded.   

Silverman-Retana and Kiecolt-Glaser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As may be expected, lifestyle risk factors, including physical activity and diet, are found to be more influential in determining type 2 diabetes risk within a married couple than physiologic factors such as glucose tolerance or insulin sensitivity, researchers have shown.

“Essentially, these data suggest that couple-based interventions targeting spouses’ similarities might be [an] efficient way of delivering lifestyle interventions,” said study lead Omar Silverman-Retana, MD, PhD.

“We identified that spousal concordance was strongest for behavioral risk factors, in particular physical activity and diet,” he told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

Silverman-Retana, of Steno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, reported the findings in a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), held online because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Effectively, concordance was found to be weaker in the pathophysiologic markers because these are more biologically determined compared with lifestyle factors.

Janice Kiecolt-Glaser, PhD, is a marital biobehavioral researcher who is interested in spousal concordance for many chronic health conditions.

This “research is part of a growing body of evidence that carries a clear message: Be careful whom you marry, your life may depend on it!” she explained.

“Your partner’s behavior definitely influences your own, and in the case of diabetes, the researchers have found clear behavioral links, and those make sense,” she told Medscape Medical News.

“In addition, data from our lab and others show that the gut microbiomes of cohabiting couples are more similar than those of unrelated pairs,” noted Kiecolt-Glaser, who is professor of psychiatry and behavioral Health at Ohio State University College of Medicine in Columbus.

“Diet and exercise both have substantial influences on the gut microbiome, and there is growing evidence that the gut microbiome contributes to risk for diabetes. This research fits with, and extends, what we know.”
 

A comprehensive picture of mechanisms leading to diabetes

The research led by Silverman-Retana and colleagues comprised a cross-sectional analysis of couples who participated in The Maastricht Study, an extensive phenotyping trial that focuses on the causes of type 2 diabetes, its classic complications, and its emerging comorbidities.

The researchers measured a comprehensive list of lifestyle and physiologic indicators, and using the social network aspect of the study, identified 172 couples with complete information for the final analysis.

Spousal concordance in lifestyle factors and pathophysiologic mechanisms of type 2 diabetes, including beta cell function and insulin sensitivity, were determined using regression analysis. Risk factors included waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, sedentary time, the Dutch Healthy Diet Index (DHDI), and total energy consumption.

In addition, the researchers assessed glucose metabolism status using fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose, as well as HbA1c, and they also derived beta cell function indices using a seven-time point glucose tolerance test, and insulin sensitivity.

“Most importantly, we measured risk factors and pathophysiologic factors in the same study, and to the same level of detail in both partners, providing a more comprehensive picture of the mechanisms that lead to type 2 diabetes,” Silverman-Retana highlighted.

There have been previous studies addressing disease risk and couples’ concordance. A prior study, also by Silverman-Retana and colleagues at Aarhus University, found a link between the weight of one spouse and the chances of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in the other spouse.

Another study, reported by Medscape Medical News  in 2018, showed that when one spouse tried to lose weight with a weight management program, the other ‘untreated’ spouse was also likely to drop some weight.

Silverman-Retana noted that other research examining the similarities and differences within couples has investigated physical activity using self-reported questionnaires, but the current study used accelerometer data.  “These provide a more precise measure of physical activity,” he said, in pointing out one way in which the new study differs from previous ones. 

The findings suggest that for men, the strongest spousal concordance was for the Dutch Healthy Diet Index (DHDI), meaning that a one unit increase in wives’ DHDI was associated with a 0.53 unit difference in the men’s DHDI.

For women, the strongest concordance was for the time spent in high intensity physical activity, such that a one unit increase in husbands’ time spent in high intensity physical activity was associated with a 0.36 unit difference in women’s time spent in high intensity physical activity.

“If we compare the concordance, it weakens as we move downstream to the immediate causal risk factors of type 2 diabetes,” explained Silverman-Retana. “The weakest concordance was found in beta cell function indices and glucose metabolism indicators because these are more biologically determined.”

Concordance is mainly explained by the fact that we tend to choose a partner who has similar characteristics to our own, in terms of social class and/or educational level, smoking status, exercise habits and diet, explained the researcher.

“It would be interesting to know how behavioral similarity depends on the length of marriage or time as a couple. Future studies will need to look into this,” he concluded.   

Silverman-Retana and Kiecolt-Glaser have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The companies behind three major COVID-19 vaccines in development released the protocols of their trials, outlining their expectations for participant enrollment, benchmarks for vaccine efficacy, and more details about the makeup of each product.

Typically, manufacturers guard the specifics of preclinical vaccine trials. This rare move follows calls for greater transparency. For example, the American Medical Association wrote a letter in late August asking the Food and Drug Administration to keep physicians informed of their COVID-19 vaccine review process.

On September 17, ModernaTx released the phase 3 trial protocol for its mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In short order, on September 19, Pfizer/BioNTech shared their phase 1/2/3 trial vaccine protocol. AstraZeneca, which is developing a vaccine along with Oxford University, also released its protocol.

The AstraZeneca vaccine trial made headlines recently for having to be temporarily halted because of unexpected illnesses that arose in two participants, according to the New York Times and other sources.

“I applaud the release of the clinical trial protocols by the companies. The public trust in any COVID-19 vaccine is paramount, especially given the fast timeline and perceived political pressures of these candidates,” Robert Kruse, MD, PhD, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment.
 

AstraZeneca takes a shot at transparency

The three primary objectives of the AstraZeneca AZD1222 trial outlined in the 110-page protocol include estimating the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and reactogenicity associated with two intramuscular doses of the vaccine in comparison with placebo in adults.

The projected enrollment is 30,000 participants, and the estimated primary completion date is Dec. 2, 2020, according to information on clinicaltrials.gov.

“Given the unprecedented global impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the need for public information, AstraZeneca has published the detailed protocol and design of our AZD1222 clinical trial,” the company said in a statement. “As with most clinical development, protocols are not typically shared publicly due to the importance of maintaining confidentiality and integrity of trials.

“AstraZeneca continues to work with industry peers to ensure a consistent approach to sharing timely clinical trial information,” the company added.
 

Moderna methodology

The ModernaTX 135-page protocol outlines the primary trial objectives of evaluating efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of two injections of the vaccine administered 28 days apart. Researchers also plan to randomly assign 30,000 adults to receive either vaccine or placebo. The estimated primary completion date is Oct. 27, 2022.

A statement that was requested from ModernaTX was not received by press time.
 

Pfizer protocol

In the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine trial, researchers plan to evaluate different doses in different age groups in a multistep protocol. The trial features 20 primary safety objectives, which include reporting adverse events and serious adverse events, including any local or systemic events.

Efficacy endpoints are secondary objectives. The estimated enrollment is 29,481 adults; the estimated primary completion date is April 19, 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic is a unique circumstance, and the need for transparency is clear,” Pfizer spokesperson Sharon Castillo told Medscape Medical News. By making the full protocol available, “we believe this will reinforce our long-standing commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients,” she said.

“Based on current infection rates, Pfizer and BioNTech continue to expect that a conclusive read-out on efficacy is likely by the end of October. Neither Pfizer nor the FDA can move faster than the data we are generating through our clinical trial,” Castillo said.

If clinical work and regulatory approval or authorization proceed as planned, Pfizer and BioNTech expect to supply up to 100 million doses worldwide by the end of 2020 and approximately 1.3 billion doses worldwide by the end of 2021.

Pfizer is not willing to sacrifice safety and efficacy in the name of expediency, Castillo said. “We will not cut corners in this pursuit. Patient safety is our highest priority, and Pfizer will not bring a vaccine to market without adequate evidence of safety and efficacy.”
 

A positive move

“COVID-19 vaccines will only be useful if many people are willing to receive them,” said Kruse, a postgraduate year 3 resident in the Department of Pathology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

“By giving the general public along with other scientists and physicians the opportunity to critique the protocols, everyone can understand what the metrics would be for an early look at efficacy,” Kruse said. He noted that information could help inform a potential FDA emergency use authorization.

Kruse has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hurricane Sally recently crossed the Gulf of Mexico and landed with torrential rainfalls along the Alabama coast. A little rainfall is important for crops; too much leads to devastation. As physicians, we need data in order to help manage patients’ illnesses and to help to keep them healthy. Our fear though is that too much data provided too quickly may have the opposite effect.

Personal monitoring devices

When I bought my first Fitbit 7 years ago, I was enamored with the technology. The Fitbit was little more than a step tracker, yet I proudly wore its black rubber strap on my wrist. It was my first foray into wearable technology, and it felt quite empowering to have an objective way to track my fitness beyond just using my bathroom scale. Now less than a decade later, that Fitbit looks archaic in comparison with the wrist-top technology currently available.

As I write this, the world’s largest technology company is in the process of releasing its sixth-generation Apple Watch. In addition to acting as a smartphone, this new device, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, offers GPS-based movement tracking, the ability to detect falls, continuous heart rate monitoring, a built-in EKG capable of diagnosing atrial fibrillation, and an oxygen saturation sensor. These features weren’t added thoughtlessly. Apple is marketing this as a health-focused device, with their primary advertising campaign claiming that “the future of health is on your wrist,” and they aren’t the only company making this play.

Along with Apple, Samsung, Withings, Fitbit, and other companies continue to bring products to market that monitor our activity and provide new insights into our health. Typically linked to smartphone-based apps, these devices record all of their measurements for later review, while software helps interpret the findings to make them actionable. From heart rate tracking to sleep analysis, these options now provide access to volumes of data that promise to improve our wellness and change our lives. Of course, those promises will only be fulfilled if our behavior is altered as a consequence of having more detailed information. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
 

Health system–linked devices

Major advancements in medical monitoring technology are now enabling physicians to get much deeper insight into their patients’ health status. Internet-connected scales, blood pressure cuffs, and exercise equipment offer the ability to upload information into patient portals and integrate that information into EHRs. New devices provide access to information that previously was impossible to obtain. For example, wearable continuous blood glucose monitors, such as the FreeStyle Libre or DexCom’s G6, allow patients and physicians to follow blood sugar readings 24 hours a day. This provides unprecedented awareness of diabetes control and relieves the pain and inconvenience of finger sticks and blood draws. It also aids with compliance because patients don’t need to remember to check their sugar levels on a schedule.

Other compliance-boosting breakthroughs, such as Bluetooth-enabled asthma inhalers and cellular-connected continuous positive airway pressure machines, assist patients with managing chronic respiratory conditions. Many companies are developing technologies to manage acute conditions as well. One such company, an on-demand telemedicine provider called TytoCare, has developed a $299 suite of instruments that includes a digital stethoscope, thermometer, and camera-based otoscope. In concert with a virtual visit, their providers can remotely use these tools to examine and assess sick individuals. This virtual “laying on of hands” may have sounded like science fiction and likely would have been rejected by patients just a few years ago. Now it is becoming commonplace and will soon be an expectation of many seeking care.

We as clinicians need to learn how best to adapt to the new world and integrate these new sources of health data into our practices. But if we are to be successful, everyone must acknowledge that this revolution in health care brings many challenges along with it. One of those is the deluge of data that connected devices provide.
 

Information overload

There is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.” Described by journalist David Shenk as “data smog” in his 1997 book of the same name, the idea is clear: There is only so much information we can assimilate.

Even after years of using EHRs and with government-implemented incentives that promote “meaningful use,” physicians are still struggling with EHRs. Additionally, many have expressed frustration with the connectedness that EHRs provide and lament their inability to ever really “leave the office.” As more and more data become available to physicians, the challenge of how to assimilate and act on those data will continue to grow. The addition of patient-provided health statistics will only make information overload worse, with clinicians will feeling an ever-growing burden to know, understand, and act on this information.

Unless we develop systems to sort, filter, and prioritize the flow of information, there is potential for liability from not acting on the amount of virtual information doctors receive. This new risk for already fatigued and overburdened physicians combined with an increase in the amount of virtual information at doctors’ fingertips may lead to the value of patient data being lost.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Hurricane Sally recently crossed the Gulf of Mexico and landed with torrential rainfalls along the Alabama coast. A little rainfall is important for crops; too much leads to devastation. As physicians, we need data in order to help manage patients’ illnesses and to help to keep them healthy. Our fear though is that too much data provided too quickly may have the opposite effect.

Personal monitoring devices

When I bought my first Fitbit 7 years ago, I was enamored with the technology. The Fitbit was little more than a step tracker, yet I proudly wore its black rubber strap on my wrist. It was my first foray into wearable technology, and it felt quite empowering to have an objective way to track my fitness beyond just using my bathroom scale. Now less than a decade later, that Fitbit looks archaic in comparison with the wrist-top technology currently available.

As I write this, the world’s largest technology company is in the process of releasing its sixth-generation Apple Watch. In addition to acting as a smartphone, this new device, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, offers GPS-based movement tracking, the ability to detect falls, continuous heart rate monitoring, a built-in EKG capable of diagnosing atrial fibrillation, and an oxygen saturation sensor. These features weren’t added thoughtlessly. Apple is marketing this as a health-focused device, with their primary advertising campaign claiming that “the future of health is on your wrist,” and they aren’t the only company making this play.

Along with Apple, Samsung, Withings, Fitbit, and other companies continue to bring products to market that monitor our activity and provide new insights into our health. Typically linked to smartphone-based apps, these devices record all of their measurements for later review, while software helps interpret the findings to make them actionable. From heart rate tracking to sleep analysis, these options now provide access to volumes of data that promise to improve our wellness and change our lives. Of course, those promises will only be fulfilled if our behavior is altered as a consequence of having more detailed information. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
 

Health system–linked devices

Major advancements in medical monitoring technology are now enabling physicians to get much deeper insight into their patients’ health status. Internet-connected scales, blood pressure cuffs, and exercise equipment offer the ability to upload information into patient portals and integrate that information into EHRs. New devices provide access to information that previously was impossible to obtain. For example, wearable continuous blood glucose monitors, such as the FreeStyle Libre or DexCom’s G6, allow patients and physicians to follow blood sugar readings 24 hours a day. This provides unprecedented awareness of diabetes control and relieves the pain and inconvenience of finger sticks and blood draws. It also aids with compliance because patients don’t need to remember to check their sugar levels on a schedule.

Other compliance-boosting breakthroughs, such as Bluetooth-enabled asthma inhalers and cellular-connected continuous positive airway pressure machines, assist patients with managing chronic respiratory conditions. Many companies are developing technologies to manage acute conditions as well. One such company, an on-demand telemedicine provider called TytoCare, has developed a $299 suite of instruments that includes a digital stethoscope, thermometer, and camera-based otoscope. In concert with a virtual visit, their providers can remotely use these tools to examine and assess sick individuals. This virtual “laying on of hands” may have sounded like science fiction and likely would have been rejected by patients just a few years ago. Now it is becoming commonplace and will soon be an expectation of many seeking care.

We as clinicians need to learn how best to adapt to the new world and integrate these new sources of health data into our practices. But if we are to be successful, everyone must acknowledge that this revolution in health care brings many challenges along with it. One of those is the deluge of data that connected devices provide.
 

Information overload

There is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.” Described by journalist David Shenk as “data smog” in his 1997 book of the same name, the idea is clear: There is only so much information we can assimilate.

Even after years of using EHRs and with government-implemented incentives that promote “meaningful use,” physicians are still struggling with EHRs. Additionally, many have expressed frustration with the connectedness that EHRs provide and lament their inability to ever really “leave the office.” As more and more data become available to physicians, the challenge of how to assimilate and act on those data will continue to grow. The addition of patient-provided health statistics will only make information overload worse, with clinicians will feeling an ever-growing burden to know, understand, and act on this information.

Unless we develop systems to sort, filter, and prioritize the flow of information, there is potential for liability from not acting on the amount of virtual information doctors receive. This new risk for already fatigued and overburdened physicians combined with an increase in the amount of virtual information at doctors’ fingertips may lead to the value of patient data being lost.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Hurricane Sally recently crossed the Gulf of Mexico and landed with torrential rainfalls along the Alabama coast. A little rainfall is important for crops; too much leads to devastation. As physicians, we need data in order to help manage patients’ illnesses and to help to keep them healthy. Our fear though is that too much data provided too quickly may have the opposite effect.

Personal monitoring devices

When I bought my first Fitbit 7 years ago, I was enamored with the technology. The Fitbit was little more than a step tracker, yet I proudly wore its black rubber strap on my wrist. It was my first foray into wearable technology, and it felt quite empowering to have an objective way to track my fitness beyond just using my bathroom scale. Now less than a decade later, that Fitbit looks archaic in comparison with the wrist-top technology currently available.

As I write this, the world’s largest technology company is in the process of releasing its sixth-generation Apple Watch. In addition to acting as a smartphone, this new device, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, offers GPS-based movement tracking, the ability to detect falls, continuous heart rate monitoring, a built-in EKG capable of diagnosing atrial fibrillation, and an oxygen saturation sensor. These features weren’t added thoughtlessly. Apple is marketing this as a health-focused device, with their primary advertising campaign claiming that “the future of health is on your wrist,” and they aren’t the only company making this play.

Along with Apple, Samsung, Withings, Fitbit, and other companies continue to bring products to market that monitor our activity and provide new insights into our health. Typically linked to smartphone-based apps, these devices record all of their measurements for later review, while software helps interpret the findings to make them actionable. From heart rate tracking to sleep analysis, these options now provide access to volumes of data that promise to improve our wellness and change our lives. Of course, those promises will only be fulfilled if our behavior is altered as a consequence of having more detailed information. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
 

Health system–linked devices

Major advancements in medical monitoring technology are now enabling physicians to get much deeper insight into their patients’ health status. Internet-connected scales, blood pressure cuffs, and exercise equipment offer the ability to upload information into patient portals and integrate that information into EHRs. New devices provide access to information that previously was impossible to obtain. For example, wearable continuous blood glucose monitors, such as the FreeStyle Libre or DexCom’s G6, allow patients and physicians to follow blood sugar readings 24 hours a day. This provides unprecedented awareness of diabetes control and relieves the pain and inconvenience of finger sticks and blood draws. It also aids with compliance because patients don’t need to remember to check their sugar levels on a schedule.

Other compliance-boosting breakthroughs, such as Bluetooth-enabled asthma inhalers and cellular-connected continuous positive airway pressure machines, assist patients with managing chronic respiratory conditions. Many companies are developing technologies to manage acute conditions as well. One such company, an on-demand telemedicine provider called TytoCare, has developed a $299 suite of instruments that includes a digital stethoscope, thermometer, and camera-based otoscope. In concert with a virtual visit, their providers can remotely use these tools to examine and assess sick individuals. This virtual “laying on of hands” may have sounded like science fiction and likely would have been rejected by patients just a few years ago. Now it is becoming commonplace and will soon be an expectation of many seeking care.

We as clinicians need to learn how best to adapt to the new world and integrate these new sources of health data into our practices. But if we are to be successful, everyone must acknowledge that this revolution in health care brings many challenges along with it. One of those is the deluge of data that connected devices provide.
 

Information overload

There is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.” Described by journalist David Shenk as “data smog” in his 1997 book of the same name, the idea is clear: There is only so much information we can assimilate.

Even after years of using EHRs and with government-implemented incentives that promote “meaningful use,” physicians are still struggling with EHRs. Additionally, many have expressed frustration with the connectedness that EHRs provide and lament their inability to ever really “leave the office.” As more and more data become available to physicians, the challenge of how to assimilate and act on those data will continue to grow. The addition of patient-provided health statistics will only make information overload worse, with clinicians will feeling an ever-growing burden to know, understand, and act on this information.

Unless we develop systems to sort, filter, and prioritize the flow of information, there is potential for liability from not acting on the amount of virtual information doctors receive. This new risk for already fatigued and overburdened physicians combined with an increase in the amount of virtual information at doctors’ fingertips may lead to the value of patient data being lost.
 

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Persons with type 2 diabetes may be at heightened risk for developing vascular dementia than other types of dementia, a team of international researchers has found.

Compared with a nondiabetic control population, those with type 2 diabetes had a statistically significant 35% increased chance of having vascular dementia in a large observational study.

By comparison, the risk for nonvascular dementia was increased by a “more modest” 8%, said the researchers from the University of Glasgow and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), while the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia appeared to be reduced by 8%.

The link between type 2 diabetes and dementia is not new, observed Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, who presented the study’s findings at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. With people living longer thanks to improved preventative strategies and treatments, there is a risk for developing other chronic conditions, such as dementia.

“A third of all dementia cases may be attributable to modifiable risk factors, among them type 2 diabetes, which accounts for 3.2% of all dementia cases,” said Dr. Celis-Morales, a research fellow at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences.

“Although we know that diabetes is linked to dementia, what we don’t know really well is how much of this association between diabetes and dementia outcomes are explained by modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors,” Dr. Celis-Morales added.

“Diabetes and dementia share certain risk factors,” commented coinvestigator Naveed Sattar, MD, in a press release issued by the EASD. These include obesity, smoking, and lack of physical activity and might explain part of the association between the two conditions.

Dr. Sattar said that the heightened vascular dementia risk found in the study was “in itself an argument for preventive measures such as healthier lifestyle,” adding that “the importance of prevention is underscored by the fact that, for the majority of dementia diseases, there is no good treatment.”

Using data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register, the research team set out to determine the extent to which type 2 diabetes was associated with dementia and the incidence of different subtypes of dementia. They also looked to see if there were any associations with blood glucose control and what risk factors may be involved.

In total, data on 378,299 individuals with type 2 diabetes were compared with data on 1,886,022 similarly aged (average, 64 years) and gender-matched controls from the general population.

After a mean 7 years of follow-up, 10,143 people with and 46,479 people without type 2 diabetes developed dementia. Nonvascular dementia was the most common type of dementia recorded, followed by Alzheimer’s disease and then vascular dementia.

“Within type 2 diabetes individuals, poor glycemic [control] increased the risk of dementia especially for vascular dementia and nonvascular dementia. However, these associations were not as evident for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Celis-Morales reported.

Comparing those with hemoglobin bA1c of less than 52 mmol/mol (7%) with those whose A1c was above 87 mmol/mol (10.1%), there was 93% increase in the risk for vascular dementia, a 67% increase in the risk for nonvascular dementia, and a 34% higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease–associated dementia.

“We have focused on high levels of HbA1c, but what happens if you have really low limits? It’s something we’re working on right now,” Dr. Celis-Morales said.

Importantly, cardiovascular-related risk factors – some of which, like systolic blood pressure and body weight, were potentially modifiable – accounted for more than 40% of the risk for dementia in type 2 diabetes. This suggests that a large percentage of the dementia risk could perhaps be addressed by identifying high-risk individuals and tailoring interventions accordingly.

“These are observational findings, so we need to be careful before we translate to any sort of recommendation,” Dr. Celis-Morales said.

The study was financed by the Swedish state under the agreement between the government and the county councils, the ALF agreement, as well as grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Dr. Celis-Morales and Dr. Sattar had no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Celis-Morales C et al. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 06.

Persons with type 2 diabetes may be at heightened risk for developing vascular dementia than other types of dementia, a team of international researchers has found.

Compared with a nondiabetic control population, those with type 2 diabetes had a statistically significant 35% increased chance of having vascular dementia in a large observational study.

By comparison, the risk for nonvascular dementia was increased by a “more modest” 8%, said the researchers from the University of Glasgow and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), while the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia appeared to be reduced by 8%.

The link between type 2 diabetes and dementia is not new, observed Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, who presented the study’s findings at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. With people living longer thanks to improved preventative strategies and treatments, there is a risk for developing other chronic conditions, such as dementia.

“A third of all dementia cases may be attributable to modifiable risk factors, among them type 2 diabetes, which accounts for 3.2% of all dementia cases,” said Dr. Celis-Morales, a research fellow at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences.

“Although we know that diabetes is linked to dementia, what we don’t know really well is how much of this association between diabetes and dementia outcomes are explained by modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors,” Dr. Celis-Morales added.

“Diabetes and dementia share certain risk factors,” commented coinvestigator Naveed Sattar, MD, in a press release issued by the EASD. These include obesity, smoking, and lack of physical activity and might explain part of the association between the two conditions.

Dr. Sattar said that the heightened vascular dementia risk found in the study was “in itself an argument for preventive measures such as healthier lifestyle,” adding that “the importance of prevention is underscored by the fact that, for the majority of dementia diseases, there is no good treatment.”

Using data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register, the research team set out to determine the extent to which type 2 diabetes was associated with dementia and the incidence of different subtypes of dementia. They also looked to see if there were any associations with blood glucose control and what risk factors may be involved.

In total, data on 378,299 individuals with type 2 diabetes were compared with data on 1,886,022 similarly aged (average, 64 years) and gender-matched controls from the general population.

After a mean 7 years of follow-up, 10,143 people with and 46,479 people without type 2 diabetes developed dementia. Nonvascular dementia was the most common type of dementia recorded, followed by Alzheimer’s disease and then vascular dementia.

“Within type 2 diabetes individuals, poor glycemic [control] increased the risk of dementia especially for vascular dementia and nonvascular dementia. However, these associations were not as evident for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Celis-Morales reported.

Comparing those with hemoglobin bA1c of less than 52 mmol/mol (7%) with those whose A1c was above 87 mmol/mol (10.1%), there was 93% increase in the risk for vascular dementia, a 67% increase in the risk for nonvascular dementia, and a 34% higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease–associated dementia.

“We have focused on high levels of HbA1c, but what happens if you have really low limits? It’s something we’re working on right now,” Dr. Celis-Morales said.

Importantly, cardiovascular-related risk factors – some of which, like systolic blood pressure and body weight, were potentially modifiable – accounted for more than 40% of the risk for dementia in type 2 diabetes. This suggests that a large percentage of the dementia risk could perhaps be addressed by identifying high-risk individuals and tailoring interventions accordingly.

“These are observational findings, so we need to be careful before we translate to any sort of recommendation,” Dr. Celis-Morales said.

The study was financed by the Swedish state under the agreement between the government and the county councils, the ALF agreement, as well as grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Dr. Celis-Morales and Dr. Sattar had no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Celis-Morales C et al. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 06.

Persons with type 2 diabetes may be at heightened risk for developing vascular dementia than other types of dementia, a team of international researchers has found.

Compared with a nondiabetic control population, those with type 2 diabetes had a statistically significant 35% increased chance of having vascular dementia in a large observational study.

By comparison, the risk for nonvascular dementia was increased by a “more modest” 8%, said the researchers from the University of Glasgow and the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), while the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia appeared to be reduced by 8%.

The link between type 2 diabetes and dementia is not new, observed Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, who presented the study’s findings at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. With people living longer thanks to improved preventative strategies and treatments, there is a risk for developing other chronic conditions, such as dementia.

“A third of all dementia cases may be attributable to modifiable risk factors, among them type 2 diabetes, which accounts for 3.2% of all dementia cases,” said Dr. Celis-Morales, a research fellow at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences.

“Although we know that diabetes is linked to dementia, what we don’t know really well is how much of this association between diabetes and dementia outcomes are explained by modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors,” Dr. Celis-Morales added.

“Diabetes and dementia share certain risk factors,” commented coinvestigator Naveed Sattar, MD, in a press release issued by the EASD. These include obesity, smoking, and lack of physical activity and might explain part of the association between the two conditions.

Dr. Sattar said that the heightened vascular dementia risk found in the study was “in itself an argument for preventive measures such as healthier lifestyle,” adding that “the importance of prevention is underscored by the fact that, for the majority of dementia diseases, there is no good treatment.”

Using data from the Swedish National Diabetes Register, the research team set out to determine the extent to which type 2 diabetes was associated with dementia and the incidence of different subtypes of dementia. They also looked to see if there were any associations with blood glucose control and what risk factors may be involved.

In total, data on 378,299 individuals with type 2 diabetes were compared with data on 1,886,022 similarly aged (average, 64 years) and gender-matched controls from the general population.

After a mean 7 years of follow-up, 10,143 people with and 46,479 people without type 2 diabetes developed dementia. Nonvascular dementia was the most common type of dementia recorded, followed by Alzheimer’s disease and then vascular dementia.

“Within type 2 diabetes individuals, poor glycemic [control] increased the risk of dementia especially for vascular dementia and nonvascular dementia. However, these associations were not as evident for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Celis-Morales reported.

Comparing those with hemoglobin bA1c of less than 52 mmol/mol (7%) with those whose A1c was above 87 mmol/mol (10.1%), there was 93% increase in the risk for vascular dementia, a 67% increase in the risk for nonvascular dementia, and a 34% higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease–associated dementia.

“We have focused on high levels of HbA1c, but what happens if you have really low limits? It’s something we’re working on right now,” Dr. Celis-Morales said.

Importantly, cardiovascular-related risk factors – some of which, like systolic blood pressure and body weight, were potentially modifiable – accounted for more than 40% of the risk for dementia in type 2 diabetes. This suggests that a large percentage of the dementia risk could perhaps be addressed by identifying high-risk individuals and tailoring interventions accordingly.

“These are observational findings, so we need to be careful before we translate to any sort of recommendation,” Dr. Celis-Morales said.

The study was financed by the Swedish state under the agreement between the government and the county councils, the ALF agreement, as well as grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Dr. Celis-Morales and Dr. Sattar had no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Celis-Morales C et al. EASD 2020, Oral presentation 06.

Survival of U.S. patients who received a kidney transplant improved during 2000-2018, but the extent of improvement among patients whose end-stage kidney disease linked with diabetes lagged behind patients with renal disease unrelated to diabetes, based on a review of more than 250,000 U.S. renal transplant recipients from that period.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

After adjustment for several demographic and clinical baseline differences, as well as for several characteristics of the organ donor, the analysis showed that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had a significant 64% higher mortality rate following kidney transplant compared with patients without diabetes, while patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had a significant 94% increased relative rate of death, Jessica Harding, PhD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The analyses that Dr. Harding reported also showed that, throughout the period examined, mortality rates following kidney transplant remained several times greater than the death rate of similar Americans who did not undergo renal replacement. By 2017, the standardized mortality ratio for patients with T2D following a kidney transplant was roughly fourfold greater than in similarly aged Americans in the general population who did undergo a transplant, while for patients with T1D the standardized mortality ratio compared with the general population was about sevenfold higher.

“Important disparities” for survival following kidney transplantation based on a specific diabetes etiology exist among U.S. patients, and further research should examine ways to better reduce posttransplant mortality in patients with diabetes, especially those with T1D, concluded Dr. Harding, an epidemiologist in the division of transplantation, department of surgery, at Emory University, Atlanta.

Issues surrounding kidney transplantation and postsurgical survival among patients with diabetes are important because these patients remain very susceptible to developing end-stage kidney disease and need for renal replacement. Adequate management of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and the adverse cardiovascular effects of immunosuppressive drugs might provide effective strategies for further mortality reductions among patients with diabetes following kidney transplant, she suggested.

The study used data collected in the United States Renal Data System during January 2000–August 2018, and included 258,188 adults who underwent a first-time, single kidney transplant at a U.S. center. About 20,000 patients had T1D (8%), about 59,000 (23%) had T2D, and the remaining 69% had no diabetes diagnosis. The data allowed for survival monitoring during a median follow-up of just over 6 years, during which more than 72,000 of the tracked patients (28%) died. The Renal Data System entries for 2017 also showed that 47% of U.S. patients with new end-stage renal disease had a diabetes etiology, Dr. Harding said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Harding had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Harding J. EASD 2020. Oral presentation 66.

Survival of U.S. patients who received a kidney transplant improved during 2000-2018, but the extent of improvement among patients whose end-stage kidney disease linked with diabetes lagged behind patients with renal disease unrelated to diabetes, based on a review of more than 250,000 U.S. renal transplant recipients from that period.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

After adjustment for several demographic and clinical baseline differences, as well as for several characteristics of the organ donor, the analysis showed that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had a significant 64% higher mortality rate following kidney transplant compared with patients without diabetes, while patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had a significant 94% increased relative rate of death, Jessica Harding, PhD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The analyses that Dr. Harding reported also showed that, throughout the period examined, mortality rates following kidney transplant remained several times greater than the death rate of similar Americans who did not undergo renal replacement. By 2017, the standardized mortality ratio for patients with T2D following a kidney transplant was roughly fourfold greater than in similarly aged Americans in the general population who did undergo a transplant, while for patients with T1D the standardized mortality ratio compared with the general population was about sevenfold higher.

“Important disparities” for survival following kidney transplantation based on a specific diabetes etiology exist among U.S. patients, and further research should examine ways to better reduce posttransplant mortality in patients with diabetes, especially those with T1D, concluded Dr. Harding, an epidemiologist in the division of transplantation, department of surgery, at Emory University, Atlanta.

Issues surrounding kidney transplantation and postsurgical survival among patients with diabetes are important because these patients remain very susceptible to developing end-stage kidney disease and need for renal replacement. Adequate management of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and the adverse cardiovascular effects of immunosuppressive drugs might provide effective strategies for further mortality reductions among patients with diabetes following kidney transplant, she suggested.

The study used data collected in the United States Renal Data System during January 2000–August 2018, and included 258,188 adults who underwent a first-time, single kidney transplant at a U.S. center. About 20,000 patients had T1D (8%), about 59,000 (23%) had T2D, and the remaining 69% had no diabetes diagnosis. The data allowed for survival monitoring during a median follow-up of just over 6 years, during which more than 72,000 of the tracked patients (28%) died. The Renal Data System entries for 2017 also showed that 47% of U.S. patients with new end-stage renal disease had a diabetes etiology, Dr. Harding said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Harding had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Harding J. EASD 2020. Oral presentation 66.

Survival of U.S. patients who received a kidney transplant improved during 2000-2018, but the extent of improvement among patients whose end-stage kidney disease linked with diabetes lagged behind patients with renal disease unrelated to diabetes, based on a review of more than 250,000 U.S. renal transplant recipients from that period.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

After adjustment for several demographic and clinical baseline differences, as well as for several characteristics of the organ donor, the analysis showed that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had a significant 64% higher mortality rate following kidney transplant compared with patients without diabetes, while patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had a significant 94% increased relative rate of death, Jessica Harding, PhD, said at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

The analyses that Dr. Harding reported also showed that, throughout the period examined, mortality rates following kidney transplant remained several times greater than the death rate of similar Americans who did not undergo renal replacement. By 2017, the standardized mortality ratio for patients with T2D following a kidney transplant was roughly fourfold greater than in similarly aged Americans in the general population who did undergo a transplant, while for patients with T1D the standardized mortality ratio compared with the general population was about sevenfold higher.

“Important disparities” for survival following kidney transplantation based on a specific diabetes etiology exist among U.S. patients, and further research should examine ways to better reduce posttransplant mortality in patients with diabetes, especially those with T1D, concluded Dr. Harding, an epidemiologist in the division of transplantation, department of surgery, at Emory University, Atlanta.

Issues surrounding kidney transplantation and postsurgical survival among patients with diabetes are important because these patients remain very susceptible to developing end-stage kidney disease and need for renal replacement. Adequate management of hyperglycemia, hypertension, and the adverse cardiovascular effects of immunosuppressive drugs might provide effective strategies for further mortality reductions among patients with diabetes following kidney transplant, she suggested.

The study used data collected in the United States Renal Data System during January 2000–August 2018, and included 258,188 adults who underwent a first-time, single kidney transplant at a U.S. center. About 20,000 patients had T1D (8%), about 59,000 (23%) had T2D, and the remaining 69% had no diabetes diagnosis. The data allowed for survival monitoring during a median follow-up of just over 6 years, during which more than 72,000 of the tracked patients (28%) died. The Renal Data System entries for 2017 also showed that 47% of U.S. patients with new end-stage renal disease had a diabetes etiology, Dr. Harding said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Harding had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Harding J. EASD 2020. Oral presentation 66.