Drug Therapy

COPENHAGEN – A first-in-class, once-daily, orally administered neuroactive steroid known for now as SAGE-217 aced all of its primary and secondary outcomes for the treatment of postpartum depression in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ROBIN study, Eduard Vieta, MD, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think this changes the paradigm in the treatment of postpartum depression,” declared Dr. Vieta, professor of psychiatry and head of the bipolar disorders program at the University of Barcelona.

Like brexanolone (Zulresso), an intravenous formulation of allopregnanolone approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2019 as the first-ever drug specifically targeting postpartum depression, SAGE-217 is a positive allosteric modifier of synaptic and extrasynaptic GABA-A receptors. That differentiates the two drugs from benzodiazepines, which target only synaptic receptors. Both brexanolone and SAGE-217 are drugs developed by Sage Therapeutics. But SAGE-217, an investigational agent, is vastly more convenient to use than brexanolone since, as an oral drug, it doesn’t require hospitalization for intravenous administration.

Dr. Vieta ticked off five reasons why he considers SAGE-217 a game changer in the treatment of postpartum depression: “It’s an amazingly effective compound, with an effect size that’s bigger than we usually see with antidepressants. It has an early onset of action, similar to what we see with glutaminergic agents, although with an opposite mechanism: enhancing GABA rather than opposing glutamate. It has excellent tolerability, similar to placebo. It’s made to be used orally, a major advantage over other drugs that are available or close to becoming available, which have to be given IV. And last but not least, a patient will get it for only 2 weeks. The treatment can be stopped after 2 weeks, and there is long-term improvement.”

The ROBIN trial included 151 patients with postpartum depression as defined by a baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 26 who were randomized double-blind to 14 days of SAGE-217 at 30 mg once daily or to placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in HAM-D scores between baseline and day 15. The key finding was that the SAGE-217 group averaged a 17.8-point reduction, significantly greater than the 13.6-point improvement with placebo. This advantage was maintained at assessment on day 45 – a full month after treatment stopped – with a 24.8-point improvement over baseline in the SAGE-217 recipients, compared with a 19-point reduction in controls. The advantage favoring SAGE-217 was significant as early as day 3, the first assessment, at which point the average improvement in HAM-D was 12.5 points, compared with 9.8 points in controls.

Other secondary endpoints included change from baseline to day 15 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS): a 22.8-point improvement in the SAGE-217 group, significantly greater than the 17.6-point improvement in the placebo arm. The same pattern was evident at day 45, with reductions in MADRS of 24.8 and 19 points, respectively, in the SAGE-217 and placebo groups.

Another key prespecified secondary endpoint was change in scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety through day 15. There was a mean 16.6-point drop in the active treatment arm, compared with a 12.7-point improvement with placebo, again a statistically significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference. This is an important endpoint because comorbid anxiety is common in the setting of postpartum depression, the psychiatrist continued.

The SAGE-217 group also demonstrated significantly higher rates of HAM-D response as defined by a 50% or greater reduction in total score at day 15, as well as in HAM-D remission, which entails having a score of 7 or less.

Treatment-emergent adverse events in the SAGE-217 and placebo arms were similar in frequency and type. The most common adverse events associated with SAGE-217 – all occurring in single-digit frequencies – were sleepiness, headache, dizziness, upper respiratory infections, and diarrhea. There was no signal of increased suicidal thoughts or behavior as assessed using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

SAGE-217 also is the focus of an ongoing pivotal phase 3 trial in patients with major depression. In addition, the drug is under study for bipolar depression, major depressive disorder with comorbid insomnia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Dr. Vieta reported serving on advisory boards for Sage Therapeutics, the study sponsor, as well as for two dozen other pharmaceutical companies. He receives research funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education, the Stanley Medical Research Institute, and more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

COPENHAGEN – A first-in-class, once-daily, orally administered neuroactive steroid known for now as SAGE-217 aced all of its primary and secondary outcomes for the treatment of postpartum depression in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ROBIN study, Eduard Vieta, MD, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think this changes the paradigm in the treatment of postpartum depression,” declared Dr. Vieta, professor of psychiatry and head of the bipolar disorders program at the University of Barcelona.

Like brexanolone (Zulresso), an intravenous formulation of allopregnanolone approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2019 as the first-ever drug specifically targeting postpartum depression, SAGE-217 is a positive allosteric modifier of synaptic and extrasynaptic GABA-A receptors. That differentiates the two drugs from benzodiazepines, which target only synaptic receptors. Both brexanolone and SAGE-217 are drugs developed by Sage Therapeutics. But SAGE-217, an investigational agent, is vastly more convenient to use than brexanolone since, as an oral drug, it doesn’t require hospitalization for intravenous administration.

Dr. Vieta ticked off five reasons why he considers SAGE-217 a game changer in the treatment of postpartum depression: “It’s an amazingly effective compound, with an effect size that’s bigger than we usually see with antidepressants. It has an early onset of action, similar to what we see with glutaminergic agents, although with an opposite mechanism: enhancing GABA rather than opposing glutamate. It has excellent tolerability, similar to placebo. It’s made to be used orally, a major advantage over other drugs that are available or close to becoming available, which have to be given IV. And last but not least, a patient will get it for only 2 weeks. The treatment can be stopped after 2 weeks, and there is long-term improvement.”

The ROBIN trial included 151 patients with postpartum depression as defined by a baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 26 who were randomized double-blind to 14 days of SAGE-217 at 30 mg once daily or to placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in HAM-D scores between baseline and day 15. The key finding was that the SAGE-217 group averaged a 17.8-point reduction, significantly greater than the 13.6-point improvement with placebo. This advantage was maintained at assessment on day 45 – a full month after treatment stopped – with a 24.8-point improvement over baseline in the SAGE-217 recipients, compared with a 19-point reduction in controls. The advantage favoring SAGE-217 was significant as early as day 3, the first assessment, at which point the average improvement in HAM-D was 12.5 points, compared with 9.8 points in controls.

Other secondary endpoints included change from baseline to day 15 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS): a 22.8-point improvement in the SAGE-217 group, significantly greater than the 17.6-point improvement in the placebo arm. The same pattern was evident at day 45, with reductions in MADRS of 24.8 and 19 points, respectively, in the SAGE-217 and placebo groups.

Another key prespecified secondary endpoint was change in scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety through day 15. There was a mean 16.6-point drop in the active treatment arm, compared with a 12.7-point improvement with placebo, again a statistically significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference. This is an important endpoint because comorbid anxiety is common in the setting of postpartum depression, the psychiatrist continued.

The SAGE-217 group also demonstrated significantly higher rates of HAM-D response as defined by a 50% or greater reduction in total score at day 15, as well as in HAM-D remission, which entails having a score of 7 or less.

Treatment-emergent adverse events in the SAGE-217 and placebo arms were similar in frequency and type. The most common adverse events associated with SAGE-217 – all occurring in single-digit frequencies – were sleepiness, headache, dizziness, upper respiratory infections, and diarrhea. There was no signal of increased suicidal thoughts or behavior as assessed using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

SAGE-217 also is the focus of an ongoing pivotal phase 3 trial in patients with major depression. In addition, the drug is under study for bipolar depression, major depressive disorder with comorbid insomnia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Dr. Vieta reported serving on advisory boards for Sage Therapeutics, the study sponsor, as well as for two dozen other pharmaceutical companies. He receives research funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education, the Stanley Medical Research Institute, and more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

COPENHAGEN – A first-in-class, once-daily, orally administered neuroactive steroid known for now as SAGE-217 aced all of its primary and secondary outcomes for the treatment of postpartum depression in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ROBIN study, Eduard Vieta, MD, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think this changes the paradigm in the treatment of postpartum depression,” declared Dr. Vieta, professor of psychiatry and head of the bipolar disorders program at the University of Barcelona.

Like brexanolone (Zulresso), an intravenous formulation of allopregnanolone approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March 2019 as the first-ever drug specifically targeting postpartum depression, SAGE-217 is a positive allosteric modifier of synaptic and extrasynaptic GABA-A receptors. That differentiates the two drugs from benzodiazepines, which target only synaptic receptors. Both brexanolone and SAGE-217 are drugs developed by Sage Therapeutics. But SAGE-217, an investigational agent, is vastly more convenient to use than brexanolone since, as an oral drug, it doesn’t require hospitalization for intravenous administration.

Dr. Vieta ticked off five reasons why he considers SAGE-217 a game changer in the treatment of postpartum depression: “It’s an amazingly effective compound, with an effect size that’s bigger than we usually see with antidepressants. It has an early onset of action, similar to what we see with glutaminergic agents, although with an opposite mechanism: enhancing GABA rather than opposing glutamate. It has excellent tolerability, similar to placebo. It’s made to be used orally, a major advantage over other drugs that are available or close to becoming available, which have to be given IV. And last but not least, a patient will get it for only 2 weeks. The treatment can be stopped after 2 weeks, and there is long-term improvement.”

The ROBIN trial included 151 patients with postpartum depression as defined by a baseline Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of at least 26 who were randomized double-blind to 14 days of SAGE-217 at 30 mg once daily or to placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in HAM-D scores between baseline and day 15. The key finding was that the SAGE-217 group averaged a 17.8-point reduction, significantly greater than the 13.6-point improvement with placebo. This advantage was maintained at assessment on day 45 – a full month after treatment stopped – with a 24.8-point improvement over baseline in the SAGE-217 recipients, compared with a 19-point reduction in controls. The advantage favoring SAGE-217 was significant as early as day 3, the first assessment, at which point the average improvement in HAM-D was 12.5 points, compared with 9.8 points in controls.

Other secondary endpoints included change from baseline to day 15 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS): a 22.8-point improvement in the SAGE-217 group, significantly greater than the 17.6-point improvement in the placebo arm. The same pattern was evident at day 45, with reductions in MADRS of 24.8 and 19 points, respectively, in the SAGE-217 and placebo groups.

Another key prespecified secondary endpoint was change in scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety through day 15. There was a mean 16.6-point drop in the active treatment arm, compared with a 12.7-point improvement with placebo, again a statistically significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference. This is an important endpoint because comorbid anxiety is common in the setting of postpartum depression, the psychiatrist continued.

The SAGE-217 group also demonstrated significantly higher rates of HAM-D response as defined by a 50% or greater reduction in total score at day 15, as well as in HAM-D remission, which entails having a score of 7 or less.

Treatment-emergent adverse events in the SAGE-217 and placebo arms were similar in frequency and type. The most common adverse events associated with SAGE-217 – all occurring in single-digit frequencies – were sleepiness, headache, dizziness, upper respiratory infections, and diarrhea. There was no signal of increased suicidal thoughts or behavior as assessed using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

SAGE-217 also is the focus of an ongoing pivotal phase 3 trial in patients with major depression. In addition, the drug is under study for bipolar depression, major depressive disorder with comorbid insomnia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Dr. Vieta reported serving on advisory boards for Sage Therapeutics, the study sponsor, as well as for two dozen other pharmaceutical companies. He receives research funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Education, the Stanley Medical Research Institute, and more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued new guidance on the combined usage of dapagliflozin and insulin for treating patients with type 1 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin alone.

In a review of clinical trials, NICE found that dapagliflozin plus insulin conferred small benefits in hemoglobin A_1c, weight loss, and quality of life, compared with insulin alone. These benefits translated to a reduced risk of long-term complications over the lifetime of the patient.

In the new NICE guideline, dual treatment with dapagliflozin and insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes and a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² is recommended only when they are receiving insulin doses of more than 0.5 units/kg per day; have undergone an evidence-based, quality-assured education program; and are supervised by a physician specializing in endocrinology and diabetes.

Hemoglobin A_1c levels should be assessed after 6 months and at regular intervals after that; if glycemic control is not improved, dapagliflozin should be stopped, as there is an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Find the full technology appraisal guidance on the NICE website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued new guidance on the combined usage of dapagliflozin and insulin for treating patients with type 1 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin alone.

In a review of clinical trials, NICE found that dapagliflozin plus insulin conferred small benefits in hemoglobin A_1c, weight loss, and quality of life, compared with insulin alone. These benefits translated to a reduced risk of long-term complications over the lifetime of the patient.

In the new NICE guideline, dual treatment with dapagliflozin and insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes and a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² is recommended only when they are receiving insulin doses of more than 0.5 units/kg per day; have undergone an evidence-based, quality-assured education program; and are supervised by a physician specializing in endocrinology and diabetes.

Hemoglobin A_1c levels should be assessed after 6 months and at regular intervals after that; if glycemic control is not improved, dapagliflozin should be stopped, as there is an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Find the full technology appraisal guidance on the NICE website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued new guidance on the combined usage of dapagliflozin and insulin for treating patients with type 1 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin alone.

In a review of clinical trials, NICE found that dapagliflozin plus insulin conferred small benefits in hemoglobin A_1c, weight loss, and quality of life, compared with insulin alone. These benefits translated to a reduced risk of long-term complications over the lifetime of the patient.

In the new NICE guideline, dual treatment with dapagliflozin and insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes and a body mass index greater than 27 kg/m² is recommended only when they are receiving insulin doses of more than 0.5 units/kg per day; have undergone an evidence-based, quality-assured education program; and are supervised by a physician specializing in endocrinology and diabetes.

Hemoglobin A_1c levels should be assessed after 6 months and at regular intervals after that; if glycemic control is not improved, dapagliflozin should be stopped, as there is an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Find the full technology appraisal guidance on the NICE website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

Women who have tested positive for Chlamydia trachomatis have an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and infertility, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis or who have not been tested for the bacterium, according to a retrospective cohort study.

CDC/Dr. E. Arum; Dr. N. Jacobs

The risk of PID increases with repeat chlamydial infections, and the use of antibiotics that are effective against C. trachomatis does not decrease the risk of subsequent PID, the researchers reported in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Prior studies have yielded different estimates of the risk of reproductive complications after chlamydia infection, said Casper den Heijer, MD, PhD, a researcher at Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Heerlen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. To assess the risk of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women with a previous C. trachomatis diagnosis, Dr. den Heijer and coauthors conducted a retrospective study of women aged 12-25 years at baseline in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Their analysis included data from women living in England between 2000 and 2013. The investigators used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from 857,324 women with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. Patients’ mean age at baseline was 15 years. In all, the participants had 8,346 occurrences of PID, 2,484 occurrences of ectopic pregnancy, and 2,066 occurrences of female infertility.

For PID, incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.1 among women untested for C. trachomatis, 1.4 among women who tested negative, and 5.4 among women who tested positive. For ectopic pregnancy, the incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.4 for negatively tested women, and 1.2 for positively tested women. Infertility incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.3 for negatively tested women, and 0.9 for positively tested women.

Compared with women who tested negative for C. trachomatis, women who tested positive had an increased risk of PID (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.36), ectopic pregnancy (aHR, 1.87), and female infertility (aHR, 1.85). Untested women had a lower risk for PID, compared with women who tested negative (aHR, 0.57).

C. trachomatis–effective antibiotic use was associated with higher PID risk, and that risk increased as the women used more of the antibiotic prescriptions, Dr. den Heijer and associates said. This occurred in all three groups of women. A possible explanation for this association between the antibiotics and higher PID risk could be that PID can be caused by other infectious diseases that could be treated with C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

While the study relied on primary care data, genitourinary medicine clinics diagnose and treat “a sizable proportion” of sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom, the authors noted. This limitation means that the study underestimates the number of C. trachomatis diagnoses in the cohort, they said.

Nonetheless, “Our results confirm the reproductive health burden of [C. trachomatis] and show the need for adequate public health interventions,” Dr. den Heijer and associates concluded.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: den Heijer CDJ et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 24. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz429.

Women who have tested positive for Chlamydia trachomatis have an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and infertility, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis or who have not been tested for the bacterium, according to a retrospective cohort study.

CDC/Dr. E. Arum; Dr. N. Jacobs

The risk of PID increases with repeat chlamydial infections, and the use of antibiotics that are effective against C. trachomatis does not decrease the risk of subsequent PID, the researchers reported in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Prior studies have yielded different estimates of the risk of reproductive complications after chlamydia infection, said Casper den Heijer, MD, PhD, a researcher at Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Heerlen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. To assess the risk of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women with a previous C. trachomatis diagnosis, Dr. den Heijer and coauthors conducted a retrospective study of women aged 12-25 years at baseline in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Their analysis included data from women living in England between 2000 and 2013. The investigators used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from 857,324 women with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. Patients’ mean age at baseline was 15 years. In all, the participants had 8,346 occurrences of PID, 2,484 occurrences of ectopic pregnancy, and 2,066 occurrences of female infertility.

For PID, incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.1 among women untested for C. trachomatis, 1.4 among women who tested negative, and 5.4 among women who tested positive. For ectopic pregnancy, the incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.4 for negatively tested women, and 1.2 for positively tested women. Infertility incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.3 for negatively tested women, and 0.9 for positively tested women.

Compared with women who tested negative for C. trachomatis, women who tested positive had an increased risk of PID (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.36), ectopic pregnancy (aHR, 1.87), and female infertility (aHR, 1.85). Untested women had a lower risk for PID, compared with women who tested negative (aHR, 0.57).

C. trachomatis–effective antibiotic use was associated with higher PID risk, and that risk increased as the women used more of the antibiotic prescriptions, Dr. den Heijer and associates said. This occurred in all three groups of women. A possible explanation for this association between the antibiotics and higher PID risk could be that PID can be caused by other infectious diseases that could be treated with C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

While the study relied on primary care data, genitourinary medicine clinics diagnose and treat “a sizable proportion” of sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom, the authors noted. This limitation means that the study underestimates the number of C. trachomatis diagnoses in the cohort, they said.

Nonetheless, “Our results confirm the reproductive health burden of [C. trachomatis] and show the need for adequate public health interventions,” Dr. den Heijer and associates concluded.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: den Heijer CDJ et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 24. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz429.

Women who have tested positive for Chlamydia trachomatis have an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and infertility, compared with women who have tested negative for C. trachomatis or who have not been tested for the bacterium, according to a retrospective cohort study.

CDC/Dr. E. Arum; Dr. N. Jacobs

The risk of PID increases with repeat chlamydial infections, and the use of antibiotics that are effective against C. trachomatis does not decrease the risk of subsequent PID, the researchers reported in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Prior studies have yielded different estimates of the risk of reproductive complications after chlamydia infection, said Casper den Heijer, MD, PhD, a researcher at Utrecht Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences in Heerlen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. To assess the risk of PID, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility in women with a previous C. trachomatis diagnosis, Dr. den Heijer and coauthors conducted a retrospective study of women aged 12-25 years at baseline in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. Their analysis included data from women living in England between 2000 and 2013. The investigators used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the risk of adverse outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from 857,324 women with a mean follow-up of 7.5 years. Patients’ mean age at baseline was 15 years. In all, the participants had 8,346 occurrences of PID, 2,484 occurrences of ectopic pregnancy, and 2,066 occurrences of female infertility.

For PID, incidence rates per 1,000 person-years were 1.1 among women untested for C. trachomatis, 1.4 among women who tested negative, and 5.4 among women who tested positive. For ectopic pregnancy, the incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.4 for negatively tested women, and 1.2 for positively tested women. Infertility incidence rates were 0.3 for untested women, 0.3 for negatively tested women, and 0.9 for positively tested women.

Compared with women who tested negative for C. trachomatis, women who tested positive had an increased risk of PID (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.36), ectopic pregnancy (aHR, 1.87), and female infertility (aHR, 1.85). Untested women had a lower risk for PID, compared with women who tested negative (aHR, 0.57).

C. trachomatis–effective antibiotic use was associated with higher PID risk, and that risk increased as the women used more of the antibiotic prescriptions, Dr. den Heijer and associates said. This occurred in all three groups of women. A possible explanation for this association between the antibiotics and higher PID risk could be that PID can be caused by other infectious diseases that could be treated with C. trachomatis–effective antibiotics.

While the study relied on primary care data, genitourinary medicine clinics diagnose and treat “a sizable proportion” of sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom, the authors noted. This limitation means that the study underestimates the number of C. trachomatis diagnoses in the cohort, they said.

Nonetheless, “Our results confirm the reproductive health burden of [C. trachomatis] and show the need for adequate public health interventions,” Dr. den Heijer and associates concluded.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: den Heijer CDJ et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 24. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz429.

Medication to help prevent breast cancer is not recommended for women without increased risk, but could benefit women at increased risk for the disease, according to an update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Dr. Cecil Fox/National Cancer Institute

SOURCEs: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019 Sept 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.11885; Nelson HD et al. JAMA. 2019 Sept 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.5780.

Medication to help prevent breast cancer is not recommended for women without increased risk, but could benefit women at increased risk for the disease, according to an update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Dr. Cecil Fox/National Cancer Institute

SOURCEs: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019 Sept 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.11885; Nelson HD et al. JAMA. 2019 Sept 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.5780.

Medication to help prevent breast cancer is not recommended for women without increased risk, but could benefit women at increased risk for the disease, according to an update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Dr. Cecil Fox/National Cancer Institute

SOURCEs: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019 Sept 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.11885; Nelson HD et al. JAMA. 2019 Sept 3. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.5780.

A number of medications commonly prescribed by rheumatologists may interact with cannabidiol oil, investigators at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, reported.

“Patients are increasingly requesting information concerning the safety of CBD oil,” Taryn Youngstein, MD, and associates said in letter to the editor in Rheumatology, but current guidelines on the use of medical cannabis do “not address the potential interactions between CBD oil and medicines frequently used in the rheumatology clinic.”

The most important potential CBD interaction, they suggested, may be with corticosteroids. Hydrocortisone and prednisolone both inhibit the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP3A, but CBD is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A, so “concomitant use may decrease glucocorticoid clearance and increase risk of systemic [corticosteroid] side effects,” the investigators wrote.

CBD also is known to inhibit the cytochrome P450 isozymes CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP3A4, and CYP1A2, which, alone or in combination, are involved in the metabolization of naproxen, tramadol, amitriptyline, and tofacitinib (Xeljanz), according to a literature search done via the college’s medicine information department that also used the British National Formulary and the Natural Medicines online interaction checker.

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib is included among the possible interactions, but the other Food and Drug Administration–approved JAK inhibitor, baricitinib (Olumiant), is primarily metabolized by the kidneys and should not have significant interaction with CBD, Dr. Youngstein and associates said. Most of the conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, adalimumab (Humira), and abatacept (Orencia), also are expected to be relatively free from CBD interactions.

This first published report on interactions between CBD oil and common rheumatology medications “highlights the importance of taking comprehensive drug histories, by asking directly about drugs considered alternative medicines and food supplements,” they said.

The investigators declared no conflicts of interest, and there was no specific funding for the study.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wilson-Morkeh H et al. Rheumatology. 2019 July 29. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez304.

A number of medications commonly prescribed by rheumatologists may interact with cannabidiol oil, investigators at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, reported.

“Patients are increasingly requesting information concerning the safety of CBD oil,” Taryn Youngstein, MD, and associates said in letter to the editor in Rheumatology, but current guidelines on the use of medical cannabis do “not address the potential interactions between CBD oil and medicines frequently used in the rheumatology clinic.”

The most important potential CBD interaction, they suggested, may be with corticosteroids. Hydrocortisone and prednisolone both inhibit the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP3A, but CBD is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A, so “concomitant use may decrease glucocorticoid clearance and increase risk of systemic [corticosteroid] side effects,” the investigators wrote.

CBD also is known to inhibit the cytochrome P450 isozymes CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP3A4, and CYP1A2, which, alone or in combination, are involved in the metabolization of naproxen, tramadol, amitriptyline, and tofacitinib (Xeljanz), according to a literature search done via the college’s medicine information department that also used the British National Formulary and the Natural Medicines online interaction checker.

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib is included among the possible interactions, but the other Food and Drug Administration–approved JAK inhibitor, baricitinib (Olumiant), is primarily metabolized by the kidneys and should not have significant interaction with CBD, Dr. Youngstein and associates said. Most of the conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, adalimumab (Humira), and abatacept (Orencia), also are expected to be relatively free from CBD interactions.

This first published report on interactions between CBD oil and common rheumatology medications “highlights the importance of taking comprehensive drug histories, by asking directly about drugs considered alternative medicines and food supplements,” they said.

The investigators declared no conflicts of interest, and there was no specific funding for the study.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wilson-Morkeh H et al. Rheumatology. 2019 July 29. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez304.

A number of medications commonly prescribed by rheumatologists may interact with cannabidiol oil, investigators at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, reported.

“Patients are increasingly requesting information concerning the safety of CBD oil,” Taryn Youngstein, MD, and associates said in letter to the editor in Rheumatology, but current guidelines on the use of medical cannabis do “not address the potential interactions between CBD oil and medicines frequently used in the rheumatology clinic.”

The most important potential CBD interaction, they suggested, may be with corticosteroids. Hydrocortisone and prednisolone both inhibit the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP3A, but CBD is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A, so “concomitant use may decrease glucocorticoid clearance and increase risk of systemic [corticosteroid] side effects,” the investigators wrote.

CBD also is known to inhibit the cytochrome P450 isozymes CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP3A4, and CYP1A2, which, alone or in combination, are involved in the metabolization of naproxen, tramadol, amitriptyline, and tofacitinib (Xeljanz), according to a literature search done via the college’s medicine information department that also used the British National Formulary and the Natural Medicines online interaction checker.

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib is included among the possible interactions, but the other Food and Drug Administration–approved JAK inhibitor, baricitinib (Olumiant), is primarily metabolized by the kidneys and should not have significant interaction with CBD, Dr. Youngstein and associates said. Most of the conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, adalimumab (Humira), and abatacept (Orencia), also are expected to be relatively free from CBD interactions.

This first published report on interactions between CBD oil and common rheumatology medications “highlights the importance of taking comprehensive drug histories, by asking directly about drugs considered alternative medicines and food supplements,” they said.

The investigators declared no conflicts of interest, and there was no specific funding for the study.

rfranki@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Wilson-Morkeh H et al. Rheumatology. 2019 July 29. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez304.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

There has been increasing emphasis from drug regulatory agencies on collecting robust data on multiple outcomes from clinical trials in addition to the efficacy outcomes and usual safety data. For about a decade, the US Food and Drug Administration has required the collection of cardiovascular outcome data during the testing of new antidiabetic therapies. There are several potential consequences of this mandate, in addition to our now having a better understanding of cardiovascular risk. Studies are likely to be larger, longer, and more expensive. Patient cohorts are selected with this in mind, meaning that studies may be harder to compare, and labeled indications may be more specific. And we now have several drugs carrying a specific indication to reduce cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes!

But as we dig deeper into the reduction in cardiovascular deaths seen in clinical trials with some of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, several questions arise. Why is their effect on mortality and cardiovascular events (and preservation of renal function) not a consistent drug class effect? All of these inhibitors decrease glucose reabsorption and thus cause glucosuria, resulting in lower blood glucose levels with modest caloric wasting and weight loss, as well as natriuresis with mild volume depletion. But the individual drugs behaved slightly differently in clinical trials. Perhaps this was due to slightly different trial populations, or chance (despite large trial numbers), or maybe molecular differences in the drugs despite their shared effect on glucosuria, resulting in distinct “off-target” effects. Perhaps the drugs differentially affect other transporters, on cells other than renal tubular cells, altering their function. An additional known effect of the drug class is uricosuria and mild relative hypouricemia. The differential effects of these drugs on urate transport into and out of different cells that may influence components of the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular and renal outcomes has yet to be fully explored.

But one thing that seems to be true is that the effect of empagliflozin and canagliflozin on cardiac mortality is not due to simply lowering the blood glucose. Trials like the UK Prospective Diabetes Study¹ demonstrated that better glucose control reduced microvascular complications, but they did not initially show a reduction in myocardial infarction. It took long-term follow-up studies to indicate that more intensive initial glucose control could reduce cardiovascular events. But a beneficial effect of empagliflozin (compared with placebo) on cardiovascular mortality (but interestingly not on stroke or nonfatal myocardial infarction) was seen within 3 months.² This observation suggests unique properties of this drug and some others in the class, in addition to their glucose-lowering effect. Puzzling to me, looking at several of the SGLT2 inhibitor drug studies, is why they seemed to behave differently in terms of different cardiovascular outcomes (eg, heart failure, stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, need for limb amputation). While some of these seemingly paradoxical outcomes have also been seen in studies of other drugs, these differences are hard for me to understand on a biological basis: they do not seem consistent with simply differential drug effects on either acute thrombosis or chronic hypoperfusion. We have much more to learn.

For the moment, I suppose we should let our practice be guided by the results of specific clinical trials, hoping that at some point head-to-head comparator drug trials will be undertaken to provide us with even better guidance in drug selection.

We can also hope that our patients with diabetes will somehow be able to afford our increasingly complex and evidence-supported pharmacotherapy, as now not only can we lower the levels of blood glucose and biomarkers of comorbidity, we can also reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

An 83-year-old woman with hypertension, hypothyroidism, and a history of depression presented to the emergency department with acute shortness of breath and hypoxia. She was found to have submassive pulmonary embolism, and a heparin infusion was started immediately.

Urgent nasopharyngeal laryngoscopy revealed a hematoma at the base of her tongue that extended into the vallecula, piriform sinuses, and aryepiglottic fold, causing acute airway obstruction. These features combined with the supratherapeutic aPTT led to the diagnosis of pseudo-Ludwig angina.

DANGER OF RAPID AIRWAY COMPROMISE

Pseudo-Ludwig angina is a rare condition in which over-anticoagulation causes sublingual swelling leading to airway obstruction, whereas true Ludwig angina is an infectious regional suppuration of the neck.

Most reported cases of pseudo-Ludwig angina have resulted from overanticogulation with warfarin or warfarin-like substances (rodenticides), or from coagulopathy due to liver disease.^1–3 Early recognition is essential to avoid airway compromise.

In our patient, all anticoagulation was discontinued, and she was intubated until the hematoma began to resolve, the aPTT returned to normal, and respiratory compromise improved. At follow-up 2 months later, the sublingual hematoma had completely resolved (Figure 1). And at a 6-month follow-up visit, the pulmonary embolism had resolved, and pulmonary pressures by 2-dimensional echocardiography were normal.

An 83-year-old woman with hypertension, hypothyroidism, and a history of depression presented to the emergency department with acute shortness of breath and hypoxia. She was found to have submassive pulmonary embolism, and a heparin infusion was started immediately.

Urgent nasopharyngeal laryngoscopy revealed a hematoma at the base of her tongue that extended into the vallecula, piriform sinuses, and aryepiglottic fold, causing acute airway obstruction. These features combined with the supratherapeutic aPTT led to the diagnosis of pseudo-Ludwig angina.

DANGER OF RAPID AIRWAY COMPROMISE

Pseudo-Ludwig angina is a rare condition in which over-anticoagulation causes sublingual swelling leading to airway obstruction, whereas true Ludwig angina is an infectious regional suppuration of the neck.

Most reported cases of pseudo-Ludwig angina have resulted from overanticogulation with warfarin or warfarin-like substances (rodenticides), or from coagulopathy due to liver disease.^1–3 Early recognition is essential to avoid airway compromise.

In our patient, all anticoagulation was discontinued, and she was intubated until the hematoma began to resolve, the aPTT returned to normal, and respiratory compromise improved. At follow-up 2 months later, the sublingual hematoma had completely resolved (Figure 1). And at a 6-month follow-up visit, the pulmonary embolism had resolved, and pulmonary pressures by 2-dimensional echocardiography were normal.

An 83-year-old woman with hypertension, hypothyroidism, and a history of depression presented to the emergency department with acute shortness of breath and hypoxia. She was found to have submassive pulmonary embolism, and a heparin infusion was started immediately.

Urgent nasopharyngeal laryngoscopy revealed a hematoma at the base of her tongue that extended into the vallecula, piriform sinuses, and aryepiglottic fold, causing acute airway obstruction. These features combined with the supratherapeutic aPTT led to the diagnosis of pseudo-Ludwig angina.

DANGER OF RAPID AIRWAY COMPROMISE

Pseudo-Ludwig angina is a rare condition in which over-anticoagulation causes sublingual swelling leading to airway obstruction, whereas true Ludwig angina is an infectious regional suppuration of the neck.

Most reported cases of pseudo-Ludwig angina have resulted from overanticogulation with warfarin or warfarin-like substances (rodenticides), or from coagulopathy due to liver disease.^1–3 Early recognition is essential to avoid airway compromise.

In our patient, all anticoagulation was discontinued, and she was intubated until the hematoma began to resolve, the aPTT returned to normal, and respiratory compromise improved. At follow-up 2 months later, the sublingual hematoma had completely resolved (Figure 1). And at a 6-month follow-up visit, the pulmonary embolism had resolved, and pulmonary pressures by 2-dimensional echocardiography were normal.

A 50-year-old man with Crohn disease and psoriatic arthritis treated with infliximab and methotrexate presented to a tertiary care hospital with fever, cough, and chest discomfort. The symptoms had first appeared 2 weeks earlier, and he had gone to an urgent care center, where he was prescribed a 5-day course of azithromycin and a corticosteroid, but this had not relieved his symptoms.

Bronchoscopy revealed edematous mucosa throughout, with minimal secretion. Specimens for bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures were obtained from bronchoalveolar lavage. Endobronchial lymph node biopsy with ultrasonographic guidance revealed nonnecrotizing granuloma.

Bronchoalveolar lavage cultures showed no growth, but the patient’s serum histoplasma antigen was positive at 5.99 ng/dL (reference range: none detected), leading to the diagnosis of mediastinal granuloma due to histoplasmosis with possible dissemination. His immunosuppressant drugs were stopped, and oral itraconazole was started.

At a follow-up visit 2 months later, his serum antigen level had decreased to 0.68 ng/dL, and he had no symptoms whatsoever. At a visit 1 month after that, infliximab and methotrexate were restarted because of an exacerbation of Crohn disease. His oral itraconazole treatment was to be continued for at least 12 months, given the high suspicion for disseminated histoplasmosis while on immunosuppressant therapy.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF GRANULOMATOUS LUNG DISEASE AND LYMPHADENOPATHY

The differential diagnosis of granulomatous lung disease and lymphadenopathy is broad and includes noninfectious and infectious conditions.¹

Noninfectious causes include lymphoma, sarcoidosis, inflammatory bowel disease, hypersensitivity pneumonia, side effects of drugs (eg, methotrexate, etanercept), rheumatoid nodules, vasculitis (eg, Churg-Strauss syndrome, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, primary amyloidosis, pneumoconiosis (eg, beryllium, cobalt), and Castleman disease.

There is concern that tumor necrosis factor antagonists may increase the risk of lymphoma, but a 2017 study found no evidence of this.²

Infectious conditions associated with granulomatous lung disease include tuberculosis, nontuberculous mycobacterial infection, fungal infection (eg, Cryptococcus, Coccidioides, Histoplasma, Blastomyces), brucellosis, tularemia (respiratory type B), parasitic infection (eg, Toxocara, Leishmania, Echinococcus, Schistosoma), and Whipple disease.

HISTOPLASMOSIS

Histoplasmosis, caused by infection with Histoplasma capsulatum, is the most prevalent endemic mycotic disease in the United States.³ The fungus is commonly found in the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys in the United States, and also in Central and South America and Asia.

Risk factors for histoplasmosis include living in or traveling to an endemic area, exposure to aerosolized soil that contains spores, and exposure to bats or birds and their droppings.⁴

Fewer than 5% of exposed individuals develop symptoms, which include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, anorexia, cough, and chest pain.⁵ Patients may experience symptoms shortly after exposure or may remain free of symptoms for years, with intermittent relapses of symptoms.⁶ Hilar or mediastinal lymphadenopathy is common in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.⁷

The risk of disseminated histoplasmosis is greater in patients with reduced cell-mediated immunity, such as in human immunodeficiency virus infection, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, solid-organ or bone marrow transplant, hematologic malignancies, immunosuppression (corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and tumor necrosis factor antagonists), and congenital T-cell deficiencies.⁸

In a retrospective study, infliximab was the tumor necrosis factor antagonist most commonly associated with histoplasmosis.⁹ In a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the disease-modifying drug most commonly associated was methotrexate.¹⁰

 

 

GOLD STANDARD FOR DIAGNOSIS

Isolation of H capsulatum from clinical specimens remains the gold standard for confirmation of histoplasmosis. The sensitivity of culture to detect H capsulatum depends on the clinical manifestations: it is 74% in patients with disseminated histoplasmosis, but only 42% in patients with acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.¹¹ The serum histoplasma antigen test has a sensitivity of 91.8% in disseminated histoplasmosis, 87.5% in chronic pulmonary histoplasmosis, and 83% in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.¹²

Urine testing for histoplasma antigen has generally proven to be slightly more sensitive than serum testing in all manifestations of histoplasmosis.¹³ Combining urine and serum testing increases the likelihood of antigen detection.

TREATMENT

Asymptomatic patients with mediastinal histoplasmosis do not require treatment. (Note: in some cases, lymphadenopathy is found incidentally, and biopsy is done to rule out malignancy.)

Standard treatment of symptomatic mediastinal histoplasmosis is oral itraconazole 200 mg, 3 times daily for 3 days, followed by 200 mg orally once or twice daily for 6 to 12 weeks.¹⁴

Although stopping immunosuppressant drugs is considered the standard of care in treating histoplasmosis in immunocompromised patients, there are no guidelines on when to resume them. However, a retrospective study of 98 cases of histoplasmosis in patients on tumor necrosis factor antagonists found that resuming immunosuppressants might be safe with close monitoring during the course of antifungal therapy.⁹ The role of long-term suppressive therapy with antifungal agents in patients on chronic immunosuppressive therapy is still unknown and needs further study.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGES

• Histoplasmosis is the most prevalent endemic mycotic disease in the United States, and mediastinal lymphadenopathy is commonly seen in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.
• Histoplasmosis should be included in the differential diagnosis of granulomatous lung disease in patients from an endemic area or with a history of travel to an endemic area.
• Immunosuppressive agents such as tumor necrosis factor antagonists and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can predispose to invasive fungal infection, including histoplasmosis.
• While isolation of H capsulatum from culture remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis, the histoplasma antigen tests (serum and urine) is more sensitive than culture.

A 50-year-old man with Crohn disease and psoriatic arthritis treated with infliximab and methotrexate presented to a tertiary care hospital with fever, cough, and chest discomfort. The symptoms had first appeared 2 weeks earlier, and he had gone to an urgent care center, where he was prescribed a 5-day course of azithromycin and a corticosteroid, but this had not relieved his symptoms.

Bronchoscopy revealed edematous mucosa throughout, with minimal secretion. Specimens for bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures were obtained from bronchoalveolar lavage. Endobronchial lymph node biopsy with ultrasonographic guidance revealed nonnecrotizing granuloma.

Bronchoalveolar lavage cultures showed no growth, but the patient’s serum histoplasma antigen was positive at 5.99 ng/dL (reference range: none detected), leading to the diagnosis of mediastinal granuloma due to histoplasmosis with possible dissemination. His immunosuppressant drugs were stopped, and oral itraconazole was started.

At a follow-up visit 2 months later, his serum antigen level had decreased to 0.68 ng/dL, and he had no symptoms whatsoever. At a visit 1 month after that, infliximab and methotrexate were restarted because of an exacerbation of Crohn disease. His oral itraconazole treatment was to be continued for at least 12 months, given the high suspicion for disseminated histoplasmosis while on immunosuppressant therapy.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF GRANULOMATOUS LUNG DISEASE AND LYMPHADENOPATHY

The differential diagnosis of granulomatous lung disease and lymphadenopathy is broad and includes noninfectious and infectious conditions.¹

Noninfectious causes include lymphoma, sarcoidosis, inflammatory bowel disease, hypersensitivity pneumonia, side effects of drugs (eg, methotrexate, etanercept), rheumatoid nodules, vasculitis (eg, Churg-Strauss syndrome, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, primary amyloidosis, pneumoconiosis (eg, beryllium, cobalt), and Castleman disease.

There is concern that tumor necrosis factor antagonists may increase the risk of lymphoma, but a 2017 study found no evidence of this.²

Infectious conditions associated with granulomatous lung disease include tuberculosis, nontuberculous mycobacterial infection, fungal infection (eg, Cryptococcus, Coccidioides, Histoplasma, Blastomyces), brucellosis, tularemia (respiratory type B), parasitic infection (eg, Toxocara, Leishmania, Echinococcus, Schistosoma), and Whipple disease.

HISTOPLASMOSIS

Histoplasmosis, caused by infection with Histoplasma capsulatum, is the most prevalent endemic mycotic disease in the United States.³ The fungus is commonly found in the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys in the United States, and also in Central and South America and Asia.

Risk factors for histoplasmosis include living in or traveling to an endemic area, exposure to aerosolized soil that contains spores, and exposure to bats or birds and their droppings.⁴

Fewer than 5% of exposed individuals develop symptoms, which include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, anorexia, cough, and chest pain.⁵ Patients may experience symptoms shortly after exposure or may remain free of symptoms for years, with intermittent relapses of symptoms.⁶ Hilar or mediastinal lymphadenopathy is common in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.⁷

The risk of disseminated histoplasmosis is greater in patients with reduced cell-mediated immunity, such as in human immunodeficiency virus infection, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, solid-organ or bone marrow transplant, hematologic malignancies, immunosuppression (corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and tumor necrosis factor antagonists), and congenital T-cell deficiencies.⁸

In a retrospective study, infliximab was the tumor necrosis factor antagonist most commonly associated with histoplasmosis.⁹ In a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the disease-modifying drug most commonly associated was methotrexate.¹⁰

 

 

GOLD STANDARD FOR DIAGNOSIS

Isolation of H capsulatum from clinical specimens remains the gold standard for confirmation of histoplasmosis. The sensitivity of culture to detect H capsulatum depends on the clinical manifestations: it is 74% in patients with disseminated histoplasmosis, but only 42% in patients with acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.¹¹ The serum histoplasma antigen test has a sensitivity of 91.8% in disseminated histoplasmosis, 87.5% in chronic pulmonary histoplasmosis, and 83% in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.¹²

Urine testing for histoplasma antigen has generally proven to be slightly more sensitive than serum testing in all manifestations of histoplasmosis.¹³ Combining urine and serum testing increases the likelihood of antigen detection.

TREATMENT

Asymptomatic patients with mediastinal histoplasmosis do not require treatment. (Note: in some cases, lymphadenopathy is found incidentally, and biopsy is done to rule out malignancy.)

Standard treatment of symptomatic mediastinal histoplasmosis is oral itraconazole 200 mg, 3 times daily for 3 days, followed by 200 mg orally once or twice daily for 6 to 12 weeks.¹⁴

Although stopping immunosuppressant drugs is considered the standard of care in treating histoplasmosis in immunocompromised patients, there are no guidelines on when to resume them. However, a retrospective study of 98 cases of histoplasmosis in patients on tumor necrosis factor antagonists found that resuming immunosuppressants might be safe with close monitoring during the course of antifungal therapy.⁹ The role of long-term suppressive therapy with antifungal agents in patients on chronic immunosuppressive therapy is still unknown and needs further study.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGES

• Histoplasmosis is the most prevalent endemic mycotic disease in the United States, and mediastinal lymphadenopathy is commonly seen in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.
• Histoplasmosis should be included in the differential diagnosis of granulomatous lung disease in patients from an endemic area or with a history of travel to an endemic area.
• Immunosuppressive agents such as tumor necrosis factor antagonists and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can predispose to invasive fungal infection, including histoplasmosis.
• While isolation of H capsulatum from culture remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis, the histoplasma antigen tests (serum and urine) is more sensitive than culture.

A 50-year-old man with Crohn disease and psoriatic arthritis treated with infliximab and methotrexate presented to a tertiary care hospital with fever, cough, and chest discomfort. The symptoms had first appeared 2 weeks earlier, and he had gone to an urgent care center, where he was prescribed a 5-day course of azithromycin and a corticosteroid, but this had not relieved his symptoms.

Bronchoscopy revealed edematous mucosa throughout, with minimal secretion. Specimens for bacterial, acid-fast bacillus, and fungal cultures were obtained from bronchoalveolar lavage. Endobronchial lymph node biopsy with ultrasonographic guidance revealed nonnecrotizing granuloma.

Bronchoalveolar lavage cultures showed no growth, but the patient’s serum histoplasma antigen was positive at 5.99 ng/dL (reference range: none detected), leading to the diagnosis of mediastinal granuloma due to histoplasmosis with possible dissemination. His immunosuppressant drugs were stopped, and oral itraconazole was started.

At a follow-up visit 2 months later, his serum antigen level had decreased to 0.68 ng/dL, and he had no symptoms whatsoever. At a visit 1 month after that, infliximab and methotrexate were restarted because of an exacerbation of Crohn disease. His oral itraconazole treatment was to be continued for at least 12 months, given the high suspicion for disseminated histoplasmosis while on immunosuppressant therapy.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF GRANULOMATOUS LUNG DISEASE AND LYMPHADENOPATHY

The differential diagnosis of granulomatous lung disease and lymphadenopathy is broad and includes noninfectious and infectious conditions.¹

Noninfectious causes include lymphoma, sarcoidosis, inflammatory bowel disease, hypersensitivity pneumonia, side effects of drugs (eg, methotrexate, etanercept), rheumatoid nodules, vasculitis (eg, Churg-Strauss syndrome, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, primary amyloidosis, pneumoconiosis (eg, beryllium, cobalt), and Castleman disease.

There is concern that tumor necrosis factor antagonists may increase the risk of lymphoma, but a 2017 study found no evidence of this.²

Infectious conditions associated with granulomatous lung disease include tuberculosis, nontuberculous mycobacterial infection, fungal infection (eg, Cryptococcus, Coccidioides, Histoplasma, Blastomyces), brucellosis, tularemia (respiratory type B), parasitic infection (eg, Toxocara, Leishmania, Echinococcus, Schistosoma), and Whipple disease.

HISTOPLASMOSIS

Histoplasmosis, caused by infection with Histoplasma capsulatum, is the most prevalent endemic mycotic disease in the United States.³ The fungus is commonly found in the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys in the United States, and also in Central and South America and Asia.

Risk factors for histoplasmosis include living in or traveling to an endemic area, exposure to aerosolized soil that contains spores, and exposure to bats or birds and their droppings.⁴

Fewer than 5% of exposed individuals develop symptoms, which include fever, chills, headache, myalgia, anorexia, cough, and chest pain.⁵ Patients may experience symptoms shortly after exposure or may remain free of symptoms for years, with intermittent relapses of symptoms.⁶ Hilar or mediastinal lymphadenopathy is common in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.⁷

The risk of disseminated histoplasmosis is greater in patients with reduced cell-mediated immunity, such as in human immunodeficiency virus infection, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, solid-organ or bone marrow transplant, hematologic malignancies, immunosuppression (corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and tumor necrosis factor antagonists), and congenital T-cell deficiencies.⁸

In a retrospective study, infliximab was the tumor necrosis factor antagonist most commonly associated with histoplasmosis.⁹ In a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the disease-modifying drug most commonly associated was methotrexate.¹⁰

 

 

GOLD STANDARD FOR DIAGNOSIS

Isolation of H capsulatum from clinical specimens remains the gold standard for confirmation of histoplasmosis. The sensitivity of culture to detect H capsulatum depends on the clinical manifestations: it is 74% in patients with disseminated histoplasmosis, but only 42% in patients with acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.¹¹ The serum histoplasma antigen test has a sensitivity of 91.8% in disseminated histoplasmosis, 87.5% in chronic pulmonary histoplasmosis, and 83% in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.¹²

Urine testing for histoplasma antigen has generally proven to be slightly more sensitive than serum testing in all manifestations of histoplasmosis.¹³ Combining urine and serum testing increases the likelihood of antigen detection.

TREATMENT

Asymptomatic patients with mediastinal histoplasmosis do not require treatment. (Note: in some cases, lymphadenopathy is found incidentally, and biopsy is done to rule out malignancy.)

Standard treatment of symptomatic mediastinal histoplasmosis is oral itraconazole 200 mg, 3 times daily for 3 days, followed by 200 mg orally once or twice daily for 6 to 12 weeks.¹⁴

Although stopping immunosuppressant drugs is considered the standard of care in treating histoplasmosis in immunocompromised patients, there are no guidelines on when to resume them. However, a retrospective study of 98 cases of histoplasmosis in patients on tumor necrosis factor antagonists found that resuming immunosuppressants might be safe with close monitoring during the course of antifungal therapy.⁹ The role of long-term suppressive therapy with antifungal agents in patients on chronic immunosuppressive therapy is still unknown and needs further study.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGES

• Histoplasmosis is the most prevalent endemic mycotic disease in the United States, and mediastinal lymphadenopathy is commonly seen in acute pulmonary histoplasmosis.
• Histoplasmosis should be included in the differential diagnosis of granulomatous lung disease in patients from an endemic area or with a history of travel to an endemic area.
• Immunosuppressive agents such as tumor necrosis factor antagonists and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can predispose to invasive fungal infection, including histoplasmosis.
• While isolation of H capsulatum from culture remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis, the histoplasma antigen tests (serum and urine) is more sensitive than culture.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is widely used in the treatment of heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction.

See related article

In this issue, Momoniat et al¹ review the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs and how to manage adverse effects. I would like to add some of my own observations.

ARE ACE INHIBITORS REALLY BETTER THAN ARBs?

ACE inhibitors have been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in whom their use is associated with reduced rates of morbidity and death.^2,3 The use of ARBs in these patients is also associated with decreased rates of morbidity and death^4,5; however, in early comparisons, ACE inhibitors were deemed more effective in decreasing the incidence of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and increased cardiovascular risk,⁶ and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF.⁷

This presumed superiority of ACE inhibitors over ARBs was thought to be a result of a greater vasodilatory effect caused by inhibiting the degradation of bradykinin and leading to increased levels of nitric oxide and vasoactive prostaglandins.⁸ Another proposed explanation was that because ARBs block angiotensin II AT1 receptors but not AT2 receptors, the increased stimulation of markedly upregulated AT2 receptors in atheromatous plaques in response to elevated serum levels of angiotensin II was deleterious.⁶ Therefore, ACE inhibitors have been recommended as first-line therapy by most guidelines, whereas ARBs are recommended as second-line therapy, when patients are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the much debated differences in outcomes between ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not seem to be real and may have originated from a generational gap in the trials.

The ACE inhibitor trials were performed a decade earlier than the ARB trials. Indirect comparisons of their respective placebo-controlled trials assumed that the placebo groups used for comparison in the 2 sets of trials were similar.^9,10 Actually, the rate of cardiovascular disease decreased nearly 50% between the decades of 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010, the likely result of aggressive primary and secondary prevention strategies in clinical practice, including revascularization and lipid-lowering therapy.¹⁰

In fact, a meta-regression analysis showed that the differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared with placebo were due to higher event rates in the placebo groups in the ACE inhibitor trials than in the ARB trials for the outcomes of death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction.¹¹ Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 to control for this generational gap showed similar efficacy with ACE inhibitors vs placebo and with ARBs vs placebo for all clinical outcomes.¹¹ Moreover, recent studies have shown that ARBs produce a greater decrease in cardiovascular events than ACE inhibitors, especially in patients with established cardiovascular disease.^12,13

An advantage of ARBs over ACE inhibitors is fewer adverse effects: in general, ARBs are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors.¹⁴ There are also ethnic differences in the risks of adverse reactions to these medications. African Americans have a higher risk of developing angioedema with ACE inhibitors compared with the rest of the US population, and Chinese Americans have a higher risk than whites of developing cough with ACE inhibitors.^9,15

 

 

HOW I MANAGE THESE MEDICATIONS

In my medical practice, I try to make sure patients with HFrEF, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction receive an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Which agent?

I prefer ARBs because patients tolerate them better. I continue ACE inhibitors in patients who are already taking them without adverse effects, and I change to ARBs in patients who later become unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Most antihypertensive agents increase the risk of incident gout, except for calcium channel blockers and losartan.¹⁶ Losartan is the only ARB with a uricosuric effect, although a mild one,^17,18 due to inhibition of the urate transporter 1,¹⁹ and therefore I prefer to use it instead of other ARBs or ACE inhibitors in patients who have a concomitant diagnosis of gout.

Which combinations of agents?

The addition of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers to ACE inhibitors or ARBs is associated with a further decrease in the mortality risk for patients with HFrEF,^20–22 but some patients cannot tolerate these combinations or optimized doses of these medications because of worsening hypotension or increased risk of developing acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia.

In most cases, I try not to combine ACE inhibitors with ARBs. This combination may be useful in nondiabetic patients with proteinuria refractory to maximum treatment with 1 class of these agents, but it is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia or acute kidney injury in patients with diabetic nephropathy without improving rates of the clinical outcomes of death or cardiovascular events.²³ I prefer adding a daily low dose of a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker to an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, which is more effective in controlling refractory proteinuria.²⁴ This regimen is associated with decreased rates of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFrEF,²² although it can lead to a higher frequency of hyperkalemia,²⁵ and patients on it require frequent dietary education and monitoring of serum potassium.

I avoid combining direct renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, since this combination has been contraindicated by the US Food and Drug Administration due to lack of reduction in target-organ damage and an associated increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure, and a slight increase in the risk of stroke or death in patients with diabetic nephropathy.²⁶

Valsartan-sacubitril

Neprilysin is a membrane-bound endopeptidase that degrades vasoactive peptides, including B-type natriuretic peptide and atrial natriuretic peptide.²⁷ The combination of the ARB valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril is associated with a 20% further decrease in rates of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization and a 16% decrease in total mortality for patients with HFrEF compared with an ACE inhibitor, although there can also be more hypotension and angioedema with the combination.^27,28

Very importantly, an ACE inhibitor cannot be used together with valsartan-sacubitril due to increased risk of angioedema and cough. I change ACE inhibitors or ARBs to valsartan-sacubitril in patients with HFrEF who still have symptoms of heart failure. Interestingly, a network meta-analysis showed that the combination of valsartan-sacubitril plus a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker and a beta-blocker resulted in the greatest mortality reduction in patients with HFrEF.⁷ A word of caution, though: one can also expect an increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure.

Monitoring

It is crucial to monitor blood pressure, serum potassium, and renal function in patients receiving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, valsartan-sacubitril, or combinations of these medications, particularly in elderly patients, who are more susceptible to complications. I use a multidisciplinary approach in my clinic: a patient educator, dietitian, pharmacist, and advanced practice nurse play key roles in educating and monitoring patients for the development of possible complications from this therapy or interactions with other medications.

A recent population-based cohort study found an association of ACE inhibitor use with a 14% relative increase in lung cancer incidence after 10 years of use, compared with ARBs,²⁹ but this may not represent a large absolute risk (calculated number needed to harm of 2,970 after 10 years of ACE inhibitor use) and should be balanced against the improvement in morbidity and mortality gained with use of an ACE inhibitor. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate this possible association.

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a cornerstone in the therapy of cardiovascular disease.
• ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors and have a better tolerability profile.
• ACE inhibitors cause more angioedema in African Americans and more cough in Chinese Americans than in the rest of the population.
• ACE inhibitors and most ARBs (except for losartan) increase the risk of gout.
• The combination of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors or ARBs and, lately, the use of the valsartan-sacubitril combination have been increasingly beneficial for patients with HFrEF.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is widely used in the treatment of heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction.

See related article

In this issue, Momoniat et al¹ review the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs and how to manage adverse effects. I would like to add some of my own observations.

ARE ACE INHIBITORS REALLY BETTER THAN ARBs?

ACE inhibitors have been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in whom their use is associated with reduced rates of morbidity and death.^2,3 The use of ARBs in these patients is also associated with decreased rates of morbidity and death^4,5; however, in early comparisons, ACE inhibitors were deemed more effective in decreasing the incidence of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and increased cardiovascular risk,⁶ and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF.⁷

This presumed superiority of ACE inhibitors over ARBs was thought to be a result of a greater vasodilatory effect caused by inhibiting the degradation of bradykinin and leading to increased levels of nitric oxide and vasoactive prostaglandins.⁸ Another proposed explanation was that because ARBs block angiotensin II AT1 receptors but not AT2 receptors, the increased stimulation of markedly upregulated AT2 receptors in atheromatous plaques in response to elevated serum levels of angiotensin II was deleterious.⁶ Therefore, ACE inhibitors have been recommended as first-line therapy by most guidelines, whereas ARBs are recommended as second-line therapy, when patients are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the much debated differences in outcomes between ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not seem to be real and may have originated from a generational gap in the trials.

The ACE inhibitor trials were performed a decade earlier than the ARB trials. Indirect comparisons of their respective placebo-controlled trials assumed that the placebo groups used for comparison in the 2 sets of trials were similar.^9,10 Actually, the rate of cardiovascular disease decreased nearly 50% between the decades of 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010, the likely result of aggressive primary and secondary prevention strategies in clinical practice, including revascularization and lipid-lowering therapy.¹⁰

In fact, a meta-regression analysis showed that the differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared with placebo were due to higher event rates in the placebo groups in the ACE inhibitor trials than in the ARB trials for the outcomes of death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction.¹¹ Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 to control for this generational gap showed similar efficacy with ACE inhibitors vs placebo and with ARBs vs placebo for all clinical outcomes.¹¹ Moreover, recent studies have shown that ARBs produce a greater decrease in cardiovascular events than ACE inhibitors, especially in patients with established cardiovascular disease.^12,13

An advantage of ARBs over ACE inhibitors is fewer adverse effects: in general, ARBs are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors.¹⁴ There are also ethnic differences in the risks of adverse reactions to these medications. African Americans have a higher risk of developing angioedema with ACE inhibitors compared with the rest of the US population, and Chinese Americans have a higher risk than whites of developing cough with ACE inhibitors.^9,15

 

 

HOW I MANAGE THESE MEDICATIONS

In my medical practice, I try to make sure patients with HFrEF, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction receive an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Which agent?

I prefer ARBs because patients tolerate them better. I continue ACE inhibitors in patients who are already taking them without adverse effects, and I change to ARBs in patients who later become unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Most antihypertensive agents increase the risk of incident gout, except for calcium channel blockers and losartan.¹⁶ Losartan is the only ARB with a uricosuric effect, although a mild one,^17,18 due to inhibition of the urate transporter 1,¹⁹ and therefore I prefer to use it instead of other ARBs or ACE inhibitors in patients who have a concomitant diagnosis of gout.

Which combinations of agents?

The addition of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers to ACE inhibitors or ARBs is associated with a further decrease in the mortality risk for patients with HFrEF,^20–22 but some patients cannot tolerate these combinations or optimized doses of these medications because of worsening hypotension or increased risk of developing acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia.

In most cases, I try not to combine ACE inhibitors with ARBs. This combination may be useful in nondiabetic patients with proteinuria refractory to maximum treatment with 1 class of these agents, but it is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia or acute kidney injury in patients with diabetic nephropathy without improving rates of the clinical outcomes of death or cardiovascular events.²³ I prefer adding a daily low dose of a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker to an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, which is more effective in controlling refractory proteinuria.²⁴ This regimen is associated with decreased rates of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFrEF,²² although it can lead to a higher frequency of hyperkalemia,²⁵ and patients on it require frequent dietary education and monitoring of serum potassium.

I avoid combining direct renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, since this combination has been contraindicated by the US Food and Drug Administration due to lack of reduction in target-organ damage and an associated increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure, and a slight increase in the risk of stroke or death in patients with diabetic nephropathy.²⁶

Valsartan-sacubitril

Neprilysin is a membrane-bound endopeptidase that degrades vasoactive peptides, including B-type natriuretic peptide and atrial natriuretic peptide.²⁷ The combination of the ARB valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril is associated with a 20% further decrease in rates of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization and a 16% decrease in total mortality for patients with HFrEF compared with an ACE inhibitor, although there can also be more hypotension and angioedema with the combination.^27,28

Very importantly, an ACE inhibitor cannot be used together with valsartan-sacubitril due to increased risk of angioedema and cough. I change ACE inhibitors or ARBs to valsartan-sacubitril in patients with HFrEF who still have symptoms of heart failure. Interestingly, a network meta-analysis showed that the combination of valsartan-sacubitril plus a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker and a beta-blocker resulted in the greatest mortality reduction in patients with HFrEF.⁷ A word of caution, though: one can also expect an increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure.

Monitoring

It is crucial to monitor blood pressure, serum potassium, and renal function in patients receiving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, valsartan-sacubitril, or combinations of these medications, particularly in elderly patients, who are more susceptible to complications. I use a multidisciplinary approach in my clinic: a patient educator, dietitian, pharmacist, and advanced practice nurse play key roles in educating and monitoring patients for the development of possible complications from this therapy or interactions with other medications.

A recent population-based cohort study found an association of ACE inhibitor use with a 14% relative increase in lung cancer incidence after 10 years of use, compared with ARBs,²⁹ but this may not represent a large absolute risk (calculated number needed to harm of 2,970 after 10 years of ACE inhibitor use) and should be balanced against the improvement in morbidity and mortality gained with use of an ACE inhibitor. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate this possible association.

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a cornerstone in the therapy of cardiovascular disease.
• ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors and have a better tolerability profile.
• ACE inhibitors cause more angioedema in African Americans and more cough in Chinese Americans than in the rest of the population.
• ACE inhibitors and most ARBs (except for losartan) increase the risk of gout.
• The combination of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors or ARBs and, lately, the use of the valsartan-sacubitril combination have been increasingly beneficial for patients with HFrEF.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is widely used in the treatment of heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction.

See related article

In this issue, Momoniat et al¹ review the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs and how to manage adverse effects. I would like to add some of my own observations.

ARE ACE INHIBITORS REALLY BETTER THAN ARBs?

ACE inhibitors have been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in whom their use is associated with reduced rates of morbidity and death.^2,3 The use of ARBs in these patients is also associated with decreased rates of morbidity and death^4,5; however, in early comparisons, ACE inhibitors were deemed more effective in decreasing the incidence of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and increased cardiovascular risk,⁶ and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF.⁷

This presumed superiority of ACE inhibitors over ARBs was thought to be a result of a greater vasodilatory effect caused by inhibiting the degradation of bradykinin and leading to increased levels of nitric oxide and vasoactive prostaglandins.⁸ Another proposed explanation was that because ARBs block angiotensin II AT1 receptors but not AT2 receptors, the increased stimulation of markedly upregulated AT2 receptors in atheromatous plaques in response to elevated serum levels of angiotensin II was deleterious.⁶ Therefore, ACE inhibitors have been recommended as first-line therapy by most guidelines, whereas ARBs are recommended as second-line therapy, when patients are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the much debated differences in outcomes between ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not seem to be real and may have originated from a generational gap in the trials.

The ACE inhibitor trials were performed a decade earlier than the ARB trials. Indirect comparisons of their respective placebo-controlled trials assumed that the placebo groups used for comparison in the 2 sets of trials were similar.^9,10 Actually, the rate of cardiovascular disease decreased nearly 50% between the decades of 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010, the likely result of aggressive primary and secondary prevention strategies in clinical practice, including revascularization and lipid-lowering therapy.¹⁰

In fact, a meta-regression analysis showed that the differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared with placebo were due to higher event rates in the placebo groups in the ACE inhibitor trials than in the ARB trials for the outcomes of death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction.¹¹ Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 to control for this generational gap showed similar efficacy with ACE inhibitors vs placebo and with ARBs vs placebo for all clinical outcomes.¹¹ Moreover, recent studies have shown that ARBs produce a greater decrease in cardiovascular events than ACE inhibitors, especially in patients with established cardiovascular disease.^12,13

An advantage of ARBs over ACE inhibitors is fewer adverse effects: in general, ARBs are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors.¹⁴ There are also ethnic differences in the risks of adverse reactions to these medications. African Americans have a higher risk of developing angioedema with ACE inhibitors compared with the rest of the US population, and Chinese Americans have a higher risk than whites of developing cough with ACE inhibitors.^9,15

 

 

HOW I MANAGE THESE MEDICATIONS

In my medical practice, I try to make sure patients with HFrEF, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction receive an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Which agent?

I prefer ARBs because patients tolerate them better. I continue ACE inhibitors in patients who are already taking them without adverse effects, and I change to ARBs in patients who later become unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Most antihypertensive agents increase the risk of incident gout, except for calcium channel blockers and losartan.¹⁶ Losartan is the only ARB with a uricosuric effect, although a mild one,^17,18 due to inhibition of the urate transporter 1,¹⁹ and therefore I prefer to use it instead of other ARBs or ACE inhibitors in patients who have a concomitant diagnosis of gout.

Which combinations of agents?

The addition of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers to ACE inhibitors or ARBs is associated with a further decrease in the mortality risk for patients with HFrEF,^20–22 but some patients cannot tolerate these combinations or optimized doses of these medications because of worsening hypotension or increased risk of developing acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia.

In most cases, I try not to combine ACE inhibitors with ARBs. This combination may be useful in nondiabetic patients with proteinuria refractory to maximum treatment with 1 class of these agents, but it is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia or acute kidney injury in patients with diabetic nephropathy without improving rates of the clinical outcomes of death or cardiovascular events.²³ I prefer adding a daily low dose of a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker to an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, which is more effective in controlling refractory proteinuria.²⁴ This regimen is associated with decreased rates of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFrEF,²² although it can lead to a higher frequency of hyperkalemia,²⁵ and patients on it require frequent dietary education and monitoring of serum potassium.

I avoid combining direct renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, since this combination has been contraindicated by the US Food and Drug Administration due to lack of reduction in target-organ damage and an associated increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure, and a slight increase in the risk of stroke or death in patients with diabetic nephropathy.²⁶

Valsartan-sacubitril

Neprilysin is a membrane-bound endopeptidase that degrades vasoactive peptides, including B-type natriuretic peptide and atrial natriuretic peptide.²⁷ The combination of the ARB valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril is associated with a 20% further decrease in rates of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization and a 16% decrease in total mortality for patients with HFrEF compared with an ACE inhibitor, although there can also be more hypotension and angioedema with the combination.^27,28

Very importantly, an ACE inhibitor cannot be used together with valsartan-sacubitril due to increased risk of angioedema and cough. I change ACE inhibitors or ARBs to valsartan-sacubitril in patients with HFrEF who still have symptoms of heart failure. Interestingly, a network meta-analysis showed that the combination of valsartan-sacubitril plus a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker and a beta-blocker resulted in the greatest mortality reduction in patients with HFrEF.⁷ A word of caution, though: one can also expect an increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure.

Monitoring

It is crucial to monitor blood pressure, serum potassium, and renal function in patients receiving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, valsartan-sacubitril, or combinations of these medications, particularly in elderly patients, who are more susceptible to complications. I use a multidisciplinary approach in my clinic: a patient educator, dietitian, pharmacist, and advanced practice nurse play key roles in educating and monitoring patients for the development of possible complications from this therapy or interactions with other medications.

A recent population-based cohort study found an association of ACE inhibitor use with a 14% relative increase in lung cancer incidence after 10 years of use, compared with ARBs,²⁹ but this may not represent a large absolute risk (calculated number needed to harm of 2,970 after 10 years of ACE inhibitor use) and should be balanced against the improvement in morbidity and mortality gained with use of an ACE inhibitor. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate this possible association.

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a cornerstone in the therapy of cardiovascular disease.
• ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors and have a better tolerability profile.
• ACE inhibitors cause more angioedema in African Americans and more cough in Chinese Americans than in the rest of the population.
• ACE inhibitors and most ARBs (except for losartan) increase the risk of gout.
• The combination of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors or ARBs and, lately, the use of the valsartan-sacubitril combination have been increasingly beneficial for patients with HFrEF.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

 

 

SGLT2 inhibitors

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

 

 

LOOSER TARGETS FOR OLDER PATIENTS

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

 

 

SGLT2 inhibitors

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

 

 

LOOSER TARGETS FOR OLDER PATIENTS

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.

When scientists discovered the band of hemoglobin A_1c during electrophoresis in the 1950s and 1960s and discerned it was elevated in patients with diabetes, little did they know the important role it would play in the diagnosis and treatment of diabetes in the decades to come.^1–3 Despite some caveats, a hemoglobin A_1c level of 6.5% or higher is diagnostic of diabetes across most populations, and hemoglobin A_1c goals ranging from 6.5% to 7.5% have been set for different subsets of patients depending on comorbidities, complications, risk of hypoglycemia, life expectancy, disease duration, patient preferences, and available resources.⁴

With a growing number of medications for diabetes—insulin in its various formulations and 11 other classes—hemoglobin A_1c targets can now be tailored to fit individual patient profiles. Although helping patients attain their glycemic goals is paramount, other factors should be considered when prescribing or changing a drug treatment regimen, such as cardiovascular risk reduction, weight control, avoidance of hypoglycemia, and minimizing out-of-pocket drug costs (Table 1).

CARDIOVASCULAR BENEFIT

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a 2 to 3 times higher risk of clinical atherosclerotic disease, according to 20 years of surveillance data from the Framingham cohort.⁵

Mixed results with intensive treatment

Reducing cardiovascular risk remains an important goal in diabetes management, but unfortunately, data from the long-term clinical trials aimed at reducing macrovascular risk with intensive glycemic management have been conflicting.

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS),⁶ which enrolled more than 4,000 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, did not initially show a statistically significant difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction with intensive control vs conventional control, although intensive treatment did reduce the incidence of microvascular disease. However, 10 years after the trial ended, the incidence was 15% lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the conventional-treatment group, and the difference was statistically significant.⁷

A 10-year follow-up analysis of the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)⁸ showed that patients who had been randomly assigned to intensive glucose control for 5.6 years had 8.6 fewer major cardiovascular events per 1,000 person-years than those assigned to standard therapy, but no improvement in median overall survival. The hemoglobin A_1c levels achieved during the trial were 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively.

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)⁹ mandated that all new applications for diabetes drugs must include cardiovascular outcome studies. Therefore, we now have data on the cardiovascular benefits of two antihyperglycemic drug classes—incretins and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, making them attractive medications to target both cardiac and glucose concerns.

Incretins

The incretin drugs comprise 2 classes, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Liraglutide. The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial¹⁰ compared liraglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) and placebo in 9,000 patients with diabetes who either had or were at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Patients in the liraglutide group had a lower risk of the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first episode of nonfatal (including silent) myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and a lower risk of cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and microvascular events than those in the placebo group. The number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent 1 event in 3 years was 66 in the analysis of the primary outcome and 98 in the analysis of death from any cause.⁹

Lixisenatide. The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial¹¹ studied the effect of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in 6,000 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent coronary event. In contrast to LEADER, ELIXA did not show a cardiovascular benefit over placebo.

Exenatide. The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL)¹² assessed another GLP-1 extended-release drug, exenatide, in 14,000 patients, 73% of whom had established cardiovascular disease. In those patients, the drug had a modest benefit in terms of first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (3-component major adverse cardiac event [MACE] outcome) in a time-to-event analysis, but the results were not statistically significant. However, the drug did significantly reduce all-cause mortality.

Semaglutide, another GLP-1 receptor agonist recently approved by the FDA, also showed benefit in patients who had cardiovascular disease or were at high risk, with significant reduction in the primary composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes or the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (including silent) or nonfatal stroke.¹³

Dulaglutide, a newer GLP-1 drug, was associated with significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) in about 9,900 patients with diabetes, with a median follow-up of more than 5 years. Only 31% of the patients in the trial had established cardiovascular disease.¹⁴

Comment. GLP-1 drugs as a class are a good option for patients with diabetes who require weight loss, and liraglutide is now FDA-approved for reduction of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. However, other factors should be considered when prescribing these drugs: they have adverse gastrointestinal effects, the cardiovascular benefit was not a class effect, they are relatively expensive, and they must be injected. Also, they should not be prescribed concurrently with a DPP-4 inhibitor because they target the same pathway.

 

 

SGLT2 inhibitors

The other class of diabetes drugs that have shown cardiovascular benefit are the SGLT2 inhibitors.

Empagliflozin. The Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG)¹⁵ compared the efficacy of empagliflozin vs placebo in 7,000 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease and showed relative risk reductions of 38% in death from cardiovascular death, 31% in sudden death, and 35% in heart failure hospitalizations. Empagliflozin also showed benefit in terms of progression of kidney disease and occurrence of clinically relevant renal events in this population.¹⁶

Canagliflozin also has cardiovascular outcome data and showed significant benefit when compared with placebo in the primary outcome of the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, but no significant effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality.¹⁷ Data from this trial also suggested a nonsignificant benefit of canagliflozin in decreasing progression of albuminuria and in the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes.

The above data led to an additional indication from the FDA for empagliflozin—and recently, canagliflozin—to prevent cardiovascular death in patients with diabetes with established disease, but other factors should be considered when prescribing them. Patients taking canagliflozin showed a significantly increased risk of amputation. SGLT2 inhibitors as a class also increase the risk of genital infections in men and women; this is an important consideration since patients with diabetes complain of vaginal fungal and urinary tract infections even without the use of these drugs. A higher incidence of fractures with canagliflozin should also be considered when using these medications in elderly and osteoporosis-prone patients at high risk of falling.

Dapagliflozin, the third drug in this class, was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure in about 17,160 patients—including 10,186 without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—who were followed for a median of 4.2 years.¹⁸ It did not show benefit for the primary safety outcome, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.

WEIGHT MANAGEMENT

Weight loss can help overweight patients reach their hemoglobin A_1c target.

Metformin should be continued as other drugs are added because it does not induce weight gain and may help with weight loss of up to 2 kg as shown in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study.¹⁹

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors help with weight loss and are good additions to a basal insulin regimen to minimize weight gain.

Liraglutide was associated with a mean weight loss of 2.3 kg over 36 months of treatment compared with placebo in the LEADER trial.¹⁰

In the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-6),²⁰ the mean body weight in the semaglutide group, compared with the placebo group, was 2.9 kg lower in the group receiving a lower dose and 4.3 kg lower in the group receiving a higher dose of the drug.

In a 24-week trial in 182 patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin, dapagliflozin produced a statistically significant weight reduction of 2.08 kg (95% confidence interval 2.84–1.31; P < .0001) compared with placebo.²¹

Lifestyle changes aimed at weight management should be emphasized and discussed at every visit.

HYPOGLYCEMIA RISK

Hypoglycemia is a major consideration when tailoring hemoglobin A_1c targets. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk (ACCORD) trial,²² severe, symptomatic hypoglycemia increased the risk of death in both the intensive and conventional treatment groups. In VADT, the occurrence of a recent severe hypoglycemic event was the strongest independent predictor of death within 90 days. Further analysis showed that even though serious hypoglycemia occurred more often in the intensive therapy group, it was associated with progression of coronary artery calcification in the standard therapy group.²³ Hence, it is imperative that tight glycemic control not be achieved at the cost of severe or recurrent hypoglycemia.

In terms of hypoglycemia, metformin is an excellent medication. The American Diabetes Association²⁴ recommends metformin as the first-line therapy for newly diagnosed diabetes. Long-term follow-up data from UKPDS showed that metformin decreased mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and lowered treatment costs as well as the overall risk of hypoglycemia.²⁵ When prescribed, it should be titrated to the highest dose.

The FDA²⁶ has changed the prescribing information for metformin in patients with renal impairment. Metformin should not be started if the eGFR is less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m², but it can be continued if the patient is already receiving it and the eGFR is between 30 and 45. Previously, creatinine levels were used to define renal impairment and suitability for metformin. This change has increased the number of patients who can benefit from this medication.

In patients who have a contraindication to metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors can be considered, as they carry a low risk of hypoglycemia as well. Sulfonylureas should be used with caution in these patients, especially if their oral intake is variable. When sulfonylureas were compared to the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, the rate of hypoglycemia was 32% in the sulfonylurea group vs 5% in the sitagliptin group.²⁷

Of the sulfonylureas, glipizide and glimepiride are better than glyburide because of a comparatively lower risk of hypoglycemia and a higher selectivity for binding the K_ATP channel on the pancreatic beta cell.²⁸

Meglitinides can be a good option for patients who skip meals, but they are more expensive than other generic oral hypoglycemic agents and require multiple daily dosing.

GLP-1 analogues also have a low risk of hypoglycemia but are only available in injectable formulations. Patients must be willing and able to perform the injections themselves.²⁹

 

 

LOOSER TARGETS FOR OLDER PATIENTS

In 2010, among US residents age 65 and older, 10.9 million (about 27%) had diabetes,³⁰ and this number is projected to increase to 26.7 million by 2050.³¹ This population is prone to hypoglycemia when treated with insulin and sulfonylureas. An injury sustained by a fall induced by hypoglycemia can be life-altering. In addition, no randomized clinical trials show the effect of tight glycemic control on complications in older patients with diabetes because patients older than 80 are often excluded.

A reasonable goal suggested by the European Diabetes Working Party for Older People 2011³² and reiterated by the American Geriatrics Society in 2013³³ is a hemoglobin A_1c between 7% and 7.5% for relatively healthy older patients and 7.5% to 8% or 8.5% in frail elderly patients with diabetes.

Consider prescribing medications that carry a low risk of hypoglycemia, can be dose-adjusted for kidney function, and do not rely on manual dexterity for administration (ie, do not require patients to give themselves injections). These include metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors.

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Polypharmacy is a concern for all patients with diabetes, especially since it increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects, increases out-of-pocket costs, and decreases the likelihood that patients will remain adherent to their treatment regimen. The use of combination medications can reduce the number of pills or injections required, as well as copayments.

Due to concern for multiple drug-drug interactions (and also due to the progressive nature of diabetes), many people with type 2 diabetes are given insulin in lieu of pills to lower their blood glucose. In addition to premixed insulin combinations (such as combinations of neutral protamine Hagedorn and regular insulin or combinations of insulin analogues), long-acting basal insulins can now be prescribed with a GLP-1 drug in fixed-dose combinations such as insulin glargine plus lixisenatide and insulin degludec plus liraglutide.

COST CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to discuss medication cost with patients, because many newer diabetic drugs are expensive and add to the financial burden of patients already paying for multiple medications, such as antihypertensives and statins.

Metformin and sulfonylureas are less expensive alternatives for patients who cannot afford GLP-1 analogues or SGLT2 inhibitors. Even within the same drug class, the formulary-preferred drug may be cheaper than the nonformulary alternative. Thus, it is helpful to research formulary alternatives before discussing treatment regimens with patients.