User login
Thrombocytosis and Cancer Risk: Management in Primary Care
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
In this podcast, I’m going to talk about unexplained high platelet counts, or thrombocytosis, and the risk for cancer in primary care. Let’s start with a typical case we all might see in primary care.
Louisa is 47 years old and is the chief financial officer for a tech startup company. She presents to us in primary care feeling tired all the time — a very common presentation in primary care — with associated reduced appetite. Past medical history includes irritable bowel syndrome, and she’s an ex-smoker.
Systemic inquiry is unremarkable. Specifically, there is no history of weight loss. Louisa has not been prescribed any medication and uses over-the-counter remedies for her irritable bowel syndrome. Examination is also unremarkable. Blood tests were checked, which were all reassuring, except for a platelet count of 612 × 109 cells/L (usual normal range, about 150-450).
What do we do next? Do we refer for an urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer? Do we check a quantitative immunohistochemical fecal occult blood test (qFIT) to identify any occult bleeding in her stool? Do we refer for a routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or pelvic ultrasound scan to exclude any upper gastrointestinal or endometrial malignancy?
Do we simply repeat the bloods? If so, do we repeat them routinely or urgently, and indeed, which ones should we recheck?
Louisa has an unexplained thrombocytosis. How do we manage this in primary care? Thrombocytosis is generally defined as a raised platelet count over 450. Importantly, thrombocytosis is a common incidental finding in around 2% of those over 40 years of age attending primary care. Reassuringly, 80%-90% of thrombocytosis is reactive, secondary to acute blood loss, infection, or inflammation, and the majority of cases resolve within 3 months.
Why the concern with Louisa then? Although most cases are reactive, clinical guidance (for example, NICE suspected cancer guidance in the UK and Scottish suspected cancer guidance in Scotland) reminds us that unexplained thrombocytosis is a risk marker for some solid-tumor malignancies.
Previous studies have demonstrated that unexplained thrombocytosis is associated with a 1-year cancer incidence of 11.6% in males and 6.2% in females, well exceeding the standard 3% threshold warranting investigation for underlying malignancy. However, thrombocytosis should not be used as a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test for cancer, or indeed to rule out cancer.
Instead, unexplained thrombocytosis should prompt us to think cancer. The Scottish suspected cancer referral guidelines include thrombocytosis in the investigation criteria for what they call the LEGO-C cancers — L for lung, E for endometrial, G for gastric, O for oesophageal, and C for colorectal, which is a useful reminder for us all.
What further history, examination, and investigations might we consider in primary care if we identify an unexplained high platelet count? As always, we should use our clinical judgment and trust our clinical acumen.
We should consider all the possible underlying causes, including infection, inflammation, and blood loss, including menstrual blood loss in women; myeloproliferative disorders such as polycythemia rubra vera, chronic myeloid leukemia, and essential thrombocythemia; and, of course, underlying malignancy. If a likely underlying reversible cause is present (for example, a recent lower respiratory tract infection), simply repeating the full blood count in 4-6 weeks is quite appropriate to see if the thrombocytosis has resolved.
Remember, 80%-90% of cases are reactive thrombocytosis, and most cases resolve within 3 months. If thrombocytosis is unexplained or not resolving, consider checking ferritin levels to exclude iron deficiency. Consider checking C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to exclude any inflammation, and also consider checking a blood film to exclude any hematologic disorders, in addition, of course, to more detailed history-taking and examination to elicit any red flags.
We can also consider a JAK2 gene mutation test, if it is available to you locally, or a hematology referral if we suspect a myeloproliferative disorder. JAK2 is a genetic mutation that may be present in people with essential thrombocythemia and can indicate a diagnosis of polycythemia rubra vera.
Subsequent to this, and again using our clinical judgment, we then need to exclude the LEGO-C cancers. Consider urgent chest x-ray to exclude lung cancer or pelvic ultrasound in women to exclude endometrial cancer. Also, we should consider an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in those individuals who have associated upper gastrointestinal symptoms and/or weight loss.
Finally, consider a qFIT to identify any occult bleeding in the stool, again if it’s available to you, or certainly if not, urgent lower gastrointestinal investigations to exclude colorectal cancer.
Alongside these possible investigations, as always, we should safety-net appropriately within agreed timeframes and check for resolution of the thrombocytosis according to the condition being suspected. Remember, most cases resolve within 3 months.
Returning to Louisa, what did I do? After seeing a platelet count of 600, I subsequently telephoned her and reexplored her history, which yielded nil else of note. Specifically, there was no history of unexplained weight loss, no history of upper or lower gastrointestinal symptoms, and certainly nothing significantly different from her usual irritable bowel syndrome symptoms. There were also no respiratory or genitourinary symptoms of note.
I did arrange for Louisa to undergo a chest x-ray over the next few days, though, as she was an ex-smoker. This was subsequently reported as normal. I appreciate chest x-rays have poor sensitivity for detecting lung cancer, as highlighted in a number of recent papers, but it was mutually agreed with Louisa that we would simply repeat her blood test in around 6 weeks. As well as repeating the full blood count, I arranged to check her ferritin, CRP, and a blood film, and then I was planning to reassess her clinically in person.
These bloods and my subsequent clinical review were reassuring. In fact, her platelet count had normalized after that 6 weeks had elapsed. Her thrombocytosis had resolved.
I didn’t arrange any further follow-up for her, but I did give her the usual safety netting advice to re-present to me or one of my colleagues if she does develop any worrying symptoms or signs.
I appreciate these scenarios are not always this straightforward, but I wanted to outline what investigations and referrals we may need to consider in primary care if we encounter an unexplained high platelet count.
There are a couple of quality-improvement activities for us all to consider in primary care. Consider as a team how we would respond to an incidental finding of thrombocytosis on a full blood count. Also consider what are our safety-netting options for those found to have raised platelet counts but no other symptoms or risk factors for underlying malignancy.
Finally, I’ve produced a Medscape UK primary care hack or clinical aide-memoire on managing unexplained thrombocytosis and associated cancer risk in primary care for all healthcare professionals working in primary care. This can be found online. I hope you find this resource helpful.
Dr. Kevin Fernando, General practitioner partner with specialist interests in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic medicine, North Berwick Group Practice in Scotland, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, Sanofi Menarini, and Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Diabetic Kidney Disease Therapies Keep on FLOWing
Further data from the FLOW study were presented during the 2024 congress of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid. The FLOW study was originally presented in May at the European Renal Association’s 2024 congress in Stockholm. It was the first dedicated kidney outcomes trial to examine a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
The FLOW study demonstrated significant kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality benefits with semaglutide 1 mg once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study has elevated semaglutide to a new pillar of care for the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) alongside RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone.
At first, whether the benefits of semaglutide were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use was uncertain. The data presented at the EASD congress, however, appeared to confirm the additive benefits of semaglutide, when combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use, in patients with DKD. The authors did acknowledge that study power was limited, given the low use of SGLT2 inhibitors at trial recruitment (no licensed SGLT2 inhibitor was available for CKD at that point), so small, clinically relevant interactions may not have been detected.
So, what are the implications of the FLOW study for primary care?
DKD is a common clinical challenge in primary care; a national diabetes audit in the United Kingdom suggested that over 40% of patients with type 2 diabetes had kidney disease. Moreover, DKD is the most common cause of kidney failure in adults starting renal replacement therapy in the United Kingdom.
Residual renal risk in patients with DKD persists despite optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone, as demonstrated in the many landmark kidney outcomes trials over the past 25 years.
So, a new pillar of GDMT is welcome, but I am worried that this widened choice of therapies may worsen therapeutic inertia; baseline use of the newer DKD therapies (specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone) remains low.
In addition, during the EASD FLOW session, Katherine Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Inland Northwest Health Services in Spokane, Washington, presented data from the US CURE-CKD registry study showing that baseline ACE inhibitor/ARB use of about 70% dropped to 50% after just 90 days. Baseline use of SGLT2 inhibitors was only about 6% and dropped to 5% after 90 days.
I suspect that much of this reduction in prescribing of ACE inhibitors/ARBs will have been in response to an acute dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or hyperkalemia, which has been a perennial challenge with RAAS inhibitor use in primary care. Ongoing education in primary care is required to manage hyperkalemia and reductions in eGFR after RAAS inhibitor initiation to prevent premature cessation of these foundational therapies.
On a positive note, there was no acute dip in eGFR after prescribing semaglutide in DKD. This observation will be reassuring for primary care and hopefully prevent unnecessary cessation of therapy.
Also reassuring was the lack of difference in diabetic retinopathy adverse events between the semaglutide and placebo groups. These events raised concerns about semaglutide following the SUSTAIN-6 CVOT study and have affected attitudes in primary care. But the rapidity and magnitude of improvement in glycemic control with semaglutide was believed to be the underlying issue, rather than semaglutide itself. A similar phenomenon has been observed with insulin. The ongoing FOCUS study is exploring the long-term effects of semaglutide on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study will hopefully provide a definite answer to this issue.
Another useful message from the FLOW study for primary care is the utility of semaglutide for glucose-lowering in the context of CKD. A1c was 0.81% lower in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group in participants with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m2. It is well established that SGLT2 inhibitors have negligible glucose-lowering effects once eGFR drops below 45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Indeed, my usual practice in CKD, if additional glucose-lowering is required once renal protection has been established with an SGLT2 inhibitor, was to add a GLP-1 receptor agonist. It is reassuring to have my clinical practice ratified by the FLOW study.
Semaglutide also helpfully provides an alternative therapeutic option for patients who do not tolerate SGLT2 inhibitors because of, for example, recurrent mycotic genital infections or polyuria, or for those in whom SGLT2 inhibitors are contraindicated, such as patients who have experienced an unprovoked episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Many of these patients still require cardiovascular and kidney protection, so the FLOW study gives me a viable evidence-based alternative.
As a class, semaglutide and GLP-1 receptor agonists are, of course, not without side effects. Gastrointestinal side effects are the most common, and this finding was echoed in the FLOW study. Gastrointestinal disorders led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 4.5% of the semaglutide group compared with 1.1% of the placebo group. The overall safety profile of semaglutide was favorable, however.
Gastrointestinal side effects can be particularly concerning in the context of CKD because of the possibility of clinical dehydration and acute kidney injury with persistent vomiting or diarrhea. Patient education is particularly important when using GLP-1 receptor agonists in this group of individuals. Reassuringly, there was no imbalance in dehydration and acute kidney injury between trial arms in the FLOW study.
Notably, past studies have suggested that patients with CKD are more likely to experience gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists; in these patients, the usual mantra of GLP-1 receptor agonist prescribing is particularly important: Start low, go slow.
Finally, medication adherence is a challenge with multiple pillars of GDMT: These evidence-based disease-modifying therapies work only if our patients take them regularly. My senior partner had a lovely turn of phrase when reviewing patients with multiple long-term conditions; he would always start the consultation by asking individuals which medications they were not taking regularly.
Overall, the FLOW study confirms semaglutide’s position as a new therapeutic pillar for DKD. This treatment will help address the residual renal risk for patients with DKD despite optimal use of GDMT. However, education and support will be required in primary care to prevent worsening therapeutic inertia.
Kevin Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, UK, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received speaker fees from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Daiichi Sankyo; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Roche Diagnostics; Embecta; Roche Diabetes Care. Received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZen
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Further data from the FLOW study were presented during the 2024 congress of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid. The FLOW study was originally presented in May at the European Renal Association’s 2024 congress in Stockholm. It was the first dedicated kidney outcomes trial to examine a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
The FLOW study demonstrated significant kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality benefits with semaglutide 1 mg once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study has elevated semaglutide to a new pillar of care for the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) alongside RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone.
At first, whether the benefits of semaglutide were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use was uncertain. The data presented at the EASD congress, however, appeared to confirm the additive benefits of semaglutide, when combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use, in patients with DKD. The authors did acknowledge that study power was limited, given the low use of SGLT2 inhibitors at trial recruitment (no licensed SGLT2 inhibitor was available for CKD at that point), so small, clinically relevant interactions may not have been detected.
So, what are the implications of the FLOW study for primary care?
DKD is a common clinical challenge in primary care; a national diabetes audit in the United Kingdom suggested that over 40% of patients with type 2 diabetes had kidney disease. Moreover, DKD is the most common cause of kidney failure in adults starting renal replacement therapy in the United Kingdom.
Residual renal risk in patients with DKD persists despite optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone, as demonstrated in the many landmark kidney outcomes trials over the past 25 years.
So, a new pillar of GDMT is welcome, but I am worried that this widened choice of therapies may worsen therapeutic inertia; baseline use of the newer DKD therapies (specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone) remains low.
In addition, during the EASD FLOW session, Katherine Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Inland Northwest Health Services in Spokane, Washington, presented data from the US CURE-CKD registry study showing that baseline ACE inhibitor/ARB use of about 70% dropped to 50% after just 90 days. Baseline use of SGLT2 inhibitors was only about 6% and dropped to 5% after 90 days.
I suspect that much of this reduction in prescribing of ACE inhibitors/ARBs will have been in response to an acute dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or hyperkalemia, which has been a perennial challenge with RAAS inhibitor use in primary care. Ongoing education in primary care is required to manage hyperkalemia and reductions in eGFR after RAAS inhibitor initiation to prevent premature cessation of these foundational therapies.
On a positive note, there was no acute dip in eGFR after prescribing semaglutide in DKD. This observation will be reassuring for primary care and hopefully prevent unnecessary cessation of therapy.
Also reassuring was the lack of difference in diabetic retinopathy adverse events between the semaglutide and placebo groups. These events raised concerns about semaglutide following the SUSTAIN-6 CVOT study and have affected attitudes in primary care. But the rapidity and magnitude of improvement in glycemic control with semaglutide was believed to be the underlying issue, rather than semaglutide itself. A similar phenomenon has been observed with insulin. The ongoing FOCUS study is exploring the long-term effects of semaglutide on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study will hopefully provide a definite answer to this issue.
Another useful message from the FLOW study for primary care is the utility of semaglutide for glucose-lowering in the context of CKD. A1c was 0.81% lower in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group in participants with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m2. It is well established that SGLT2 inhibitors have negligible glucose-lowering effects once eGFR drops below 45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Indeed, my usual practice in CKD, if additional glucose-lowering is required once renal protection has been established with an SGLT2 inhibitor, was to add a GLP-1 receptor agonist. It is reassuring to have my clinical practice ratified by the FLOW study.
Semaglutide also helpfully provides an alternative therapeutic option for patients who do not tolerate SGLT2 inhibitors because of, for example, recurrent mycotic genital infections or polyuria, or for those in whom SGLT2 inhibitors are contraindicated, such as patients who have experienced an unprovoked episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Many of these patients still require cardiovascular and kidney protection, so the FLOW study gives me a viable evidence-based alternative.
As a class, semaglutide and GLP-1 receptor agonists are, of course, not without side effects. Gastrointestinal side effects are the most common, and this finding was echoed in the FLOW study. Gastrointestinal disorders led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 4.5% of the semaglutide group compared with 1.1% of the placebo group. The overall safety profile of semaglutide was favorable, however.
Gastrointestinal side effects can be particularly concerning in the context of CKD because of the possibility of clinical dehydration and acute kidney injury with persistent vomiting or diarrhea. Patient education is particularly important when using GLP-1 receptor agonists in this group of individuals. Reassuringly, there was no imbalance in dehydration and acute kidney injury between trial arms in the FLOW study.
Notably, past studies have suggested that patients with CKD are more likely to experience gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists; in these patients, the usual mantra of GLP-1 receptor agonist prescribing is particularly important: Start low, go slow.
Finally, medication adherence is a challenge with multiple pillars of GDMT: These evidence-based disease-modifying therapies work only if our patients take them regularly. My senior partner had a lovely turn of phrase when reviewing patients with multiple long-term conditions; he would always start the consultation by asking individuals which medications they were not taking regularly.
Overall, the FLOW study confirms semaglutide’s position as a new therapeutic pillar for DKD. This treatment will help address the residual renal risk for patients with DKD despite optimal use of GDMT. However, education and support will be required in primary care to prevent worsening therapeutic inertia.
Kevin Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, UK, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received speaker fees from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Daiichi Sankyo; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Roche Diagnostics; Embecta; Roche Diabetes Care. Received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZen
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Further data from the FLOW study were presented during the 2024 congress of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid. The FLOW study was originally presented in May at the European Renal Association’s 2024 congress in Stockholm. It was the first dedicated kidney outcomes trial to examine a GLP-1 receptor agonist.
The FLOW study demonstrated significant kidney, cardiovascular, and mortality benefits with semaglutide 1 mg once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study has elevated semaglutide to a new pillar of care for the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) alongside RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone.
At first, whether the benefits of semaglutide were independent of baseline SGLT2 inhibitor use was uncertain. The data presented at the EASD congress, however, appeared to confirm the additive benefits of semaglutide, when combined with SGLT2 inhibitor use, in patients with DKD. The authors did acknowledge that study power was limited, given the low use of SGLT2 inhibitors at trial recruitment (no licensed SGLT2 inhibitor was available for CKD at that point), so small, clinically relevant interactions may not have been detected.
So, what are the implications of the FLOW study for primary care?
DKD is a common clinical challenge in primary care; a national diabetes audit in the United Kingdom suggested that over 40% of patients with type 2 diabetes had kidney disease. Moreover, DKD is the most common cause of kidney failure in adults starting renal replacement therapy in the United Kingdom.
Residual renal risk in patients with DKD persists despite optimal use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with RAAS inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and finerenone, as demonstrated in the many landmark kidney outcomes trials over the past 25 years.
So, a new pillar of GDMT is welcome, but I am worried that this widened choice of therapies may worsen therapeutic inertia; baseline use of the newer DKD therapies (specifically SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone) remains low.
In addition, during the EASD FLOW session, Katherine Tuttle, MD, executive director for research at Providence Inland Northwest Health Services in Spokane, Washington, presented data from the US CURE-CKD registry study showing that baseline ACE inhibitor/ARB use of about 70% dropped to 50% after just 90 days. Baseline use of SGLT2 inhibitors was only about 6% and dropped to 5% after 90 days.
I suspect that much of this reduction in prescribing of ACE inhibitors/ARBs will have been in response to an acute dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or hyperkalemia, which has been a perennial challenge with RAAS inhibitor use in primary care. Ongoing education in primary care is required to manage hyperkalemia and reductions in eGFR after RAAS inhibitor initiation to prevent premature cessation of these foundational therapies.
On a positive note, there was no acute dip in eGFR after prescribing semaglutide in DKD. This observation will be reassuring for primary care and hopefully prevent unnecessary cessation of therapy.
Also reassuring was the lack of difference in diabetic retinopathy adverse events between the semaglutide and placebo groups. These events raised concerns about semaglutide following the SUSTAIN-6 CVOT study and have affected attitudes in primary care. But the rapidity and magnitude of improvement in glycemic control with semaglutide was believed to be the underlying issue, rather than semaglutide itself. A similar phenomenon has been observed with insulin. The ongoing FOCUS study is exploring the long-term effects of semaglutide on diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study will hopefully provide a definite answer to this issue.
Another useful message from the FLOW study for primary care is the utility of semaglutide for glucose-lowering in the context of CKD. A1c was 0.81% lower in the semaglutide group compared with the placebo group in participants with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m2. It is well established that SGLT2 inhibitors have negligible glucose-lowering effects once eGFR drops below 45 mL/min/1.73 m2. Indeed, my usual practice in CKD, if additional glucose-lowering is required once renal protection has been established with an SGLT2 inhibitor, was to add a GLP-1 receptor agonist. It is reassuring to have my clinical practice ratified by the FLOW study.
Semaglutide also helpfully provides an alternative therapeutic option for patients who do not tolerate SGLT2 inhibitors because of, for example, recurrent mycotic genital infections or polyuria, or for those in whom SGLT2 inhibitors are contraindicated, such as patients who have experienced an unprovoked episode of diabetic ketoacidosis. Many of these patients still require cardiovascular and kidney protection, so the FLOW study gives me a viable evidence-based alternative.
As a class, semaglutide and GLP-1 receptor agonists are, of course, not without side effects. Gastrointestinal side effects are the most common, and this finding was echoed in the FLOW study. Gastrointestinal disorders led to permanent treatment discontinuation in 4.5% of the semaglutide group compared with 1.1% of the placebo group. The overall safety profile of semaglutide was favorable, however.
Gastrointestinal side effects can be particularly concerning in the context of CKD because of the possibility of clinical dehydration and acute kidney injury with persistent vomiting or diarrhea. Patient education is particularly important when using GLP-1 receptor agonists in this group of individuals. Reassuringly, there was no imbalance in dehydration and acute kidney injury between trial arms in the FLOW study.
Notably, past studies have suggested that patients with CKD are more likely to experience gastrointestinal side effects with GLP-1 receptor agonists; in these patients, the usual mantra of GLP-1 receptor agonist prescribing is particularly important: Start low, go slow.
Finally, medication adherence is a challenge with multiple pillars of GDMT: These evidence-based disease-modifying therapies work only if our patients take them regularly. My senior partner had a lovely turn of phrase when reviewing patients with multiple long-term conditions; he would always start the consultation by asking individuals which medications they were not taking regularly.
Overall, the FLOW study confirms semaglutide’s position as a new therapeutic pillar for DKD. This treatment will help address the residual renal risk for patients with DKD despite optimal use of GDMT. However, education and support will be required in primary care to prevent worsening therapeutic inertia.
Kevin Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, UK, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received speaker fees from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Daiichi Sankyo; Lilly; Menarini; Novartis; Novo Nordisk; Roche Diagnostics; Embecta; Roche Diabetes Care. Received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from: Amarin; Amgen; AstraZen
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2024
Once-Weekly Insulin: A Game-Changer for Primary Care
Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.
Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms.
This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.
So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?
“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.
I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.
But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin.
Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving.
Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.
Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin.
In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.
I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.
From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.
From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.
My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.
Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.
In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.
Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.
Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms.
This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.
So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?
“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.
I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.
But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin.
Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving.
Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.
Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin.
In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.
I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.
From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.
From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.
My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.
Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.
In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.
Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 congress in Madrid, the QWINT-2 study established that. Study participants were, however, receiving noninsulin glucose-lowering agents, including glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.
Slightly higher rates of mild to moderate hypoglycemia were noted with efsitora compared with degludec, but no significant differences in severe hypoglycemia were observed. Nor was there any difference in weight gain between groups, and adverse events were balanced between study arms.
This study positions insulin efsitora alongside once-weekly insulin icodec as a novel long-acting insulin therapy. In the ONWARDS 3 trial, icodec was noninferior to once-daily degludec, in terms of A1c reduction. It also had an adverse effect profile like that of efsitora with respect to hypoglycemia and weight change.
So, what are the implications of a once-weekly insulin for primary care?
“Game-changer” is an overused term, but from the perspective of primary care, it applies to once-weekly insulin.
I initiate basal insulin much less frequently these days, given the multitude of noninsulin options now available to me in primary care, particularly the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonists. The American Diabetes Association/EASD 2022 consensus report also reminds me that GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered in all individuals with T2D before insulin, unless they are contraindicated. GLP-1 receptor agonists are insulin-sparing agents with a lower injection burden and a lower risk for hypoglycemia. They also promote significant weight loss compared with basal insulin.
But progressive beta-cell decline and insulin deficiency are among the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2D. Eventually, many patients with T2D, despite lifestyle interventions and medication adherence, do require insulin.
Understandably, many of my patients have reservations about commencing insulin. Significant stigma about starting insulin persists, because others often perceive insulin use as a failure to manage T2D. Patients frequently fear injections, and many are worried about how insulin therapy, specifically the risk for hypoglycemia, will affect their daily activities such as driving.
Clinicians often experience therapeutic inertia, hesitating to escalate therapy to insulin because of a lack of confidence and competence, which often results from inadequate education. Lengthy referral-to-treatment waiting times are common in the United Kingdom, and there is concern about the workload implications associated with insulin initiation.
Workload is a particular concern for my community nursing colleagues, who must visit some of my more frail and functionally dependent patients daily to administer their insulin.
In addition, the delivery of high-quality diabetes care in nursing homes, particularly for patients requiring insulin, has been a perennial challenge in the UK, again because of a lack of confidence and competence due to an absence of education for nursing and ancillary staff.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to switch many of these frail patients to noninsulin therapies because of their insulinopenia, as well as the significant weight (and sometimes muscle) loss associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists. Also, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors are associated with a risk for volume depletion and diabetic ketoacidosis.
I believe that the availability of a once-weekly insulin will help overcome many of the above barriers.
From a patient’s viewpoint, simplification of insulin therapy with once-weekly insulin will substantially reduce the number of injections required (from 365 to 52 over 1 year). This change will improve compliance and concordance even in patients with injection anxiety. These results will hopefully translate into improved glycemic control and a lower risk for the complications of T2D. Real-world evidence for these outcomes is not yet available, however. Also, the reduced amount of insulin consumables that once-weekly dosing requires will also help improve the environmental footprint of insulin therapy.
From a clinician’s viewpoint, once-weekly insulin may seem less daunting and could reduce therapeutic inertia, thus facilitating earlier initiation of insulin therapy and reducing the risk for complications of T2D. Although education remains pivotal, this ease of dosing may be more acceptable to many clinicians because it has less of an effect on workload. This dosing could even save time because it requires less intensive follow-up than daily basal insulin does.
My community nurse colleagues were ecstatic when I mentioned that once-weekly basal insulin was on the horizon. This formulation could reduce the number of weekly home visits from 7 to just 1, thus freeing up considerable healthcare resources. And if once-weekly insulin is coupled with continuous glucose monitoring, then remote review of glucose data can further streamline and optimize the management of T2D in frail older patients. I am sure that my nursing-home colleagues will be equally enthusiastic about simplifying insulin regimens and monitoring.
Finally, an unanswered question is how I manage “sick days” for patients on weekly insulin dosing. Of course, the golden rule of never stopping insulin during intercurrent illness must be followed, but is any dose titration required for once-weekly insulin? I suspect not, but do I need to consider adding a once-daily basal insulin or rapid-acting insulin to mitigate the glucose counterregulatory hormone response during acute illness? Initially, I will be asking specialist diabetes teams for further advice on managing sick days.
In conclusion, once-weekly dosing of insulin is a game-changer for primary care and could finally be the driver to quash therapeutic inertia and address common patient barriers when escalation to insulin is required.
Dr. Fernando, general practitioner partner, North Berwick Health Centre, North Berwick, Scotland, disclosed ties with Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Embecta, Roche Diabetes Care, and Sanofi.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Debate: Is lasting remission of type 2 diabetes feasible in the real-world setting?
The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.
I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.
However,
I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
Remarkable weight loss
Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.
Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.
Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.
This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.
He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m2). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.
In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.
Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.
Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.
He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.
This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
New terminology proposed
Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.
Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.
Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.
The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.
Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.
Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.
Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”
Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.
I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.
However,
I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
Remarkable weight loss
Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.
Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.
Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.
This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.
He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m2). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.
In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.
Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.
Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.
He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.
This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
New terminology proposed
Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.
Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.
Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.
The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.
Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.
Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.
Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”
Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The prospect of remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has captured the hearts and minds of many patients with T2D and health care professionals, including myself.
I have changed my narrative when supporting my patients with T2D. I used to say that T2D is a progressive condition, but considering seminal recent evidence like the DiRECT trial, I now say that T2D can be a progressive condition. Through significant weight loss, patients can reverse it and achieve remission of T2D. This has given my patients hope that their T2D is no longer an inexorable condition. And hope, of course, is a powerful enabler of change.
However,
I therefore relished the opportunity to attend a debate on this topic at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in Hamburg, Germany, between Roy Taylor, MD, principal investigator for the DiRECT study and professor of medicine and metabolism at the University of Newcastle, England, and Kamlesh Khunti, MD, PhD, professor of primary care diabetes at the University of Leicester, England.
Remarkable weight loss
Dr. Taylor powerfully recapitulated the initial results of the DiRECT study. T2D remission was achieved in 46% of participants who underwent a low-energy formula diet (around 850 calories daily) for 3-5 months. After 2 years’ follow-up, an impressive 36% of participants were still in remission. Dr. Taylor then discussed unpublished 5-year extension follow-up data of the DiRECT study. Average weight loss in the remaining intervention group was 6.1 kg. I echo Taylor’s sentiment that this finding is remarkable in the context of a dietary study.
Overall, 13% of participants were still in remission, and this cohort maintained an average weight loss of 8.9 kg. Dr. Taylor concluded that lasting remission of T2D is indeed feasible in a primary care setting.
Yet he acknowledged that although remission appears feasible in the longer term, it was not necessarily easy, or indeed possible, for everyone. He used a wonderful analogy about climbing Mount Everest: It is feasible, but not everyone can or wants to climb it. And even if you try, you might not reach the top.
This analogy perfectly encapsulates the challenges I have observed when my patients have striven for T2D remission. In my opinion, intensive weight management with a low-energy formula diet is not a panacea for T2D but another tool in our toolbox to offer patients.
He also described some “jaw-dropping” results regarding incidence of cancer: There were no cases of cancer in the intervention group during the 5-year period, but there were eight cases of cancer in the control group. The latter figure is consistent with published data for cancer incidence in patients with T2D and the body mass index (BMI) inclusion criteria for the DiRECT study (a BMI of 27-45 kg/m2). Obesity is an established risk factor for 13 types of cancer, and excess body fat entails an approximately 17% increased risk for cancer-specific mortality. This indeed is a powerful motivator to facilitate meaningful lifestyle change.
In primary care, we also need to be aware that most weight regain usually occurs secondary to a life event (for example, financial, family, or illness). We should reiterate to our patients that weight regain is not a failure; it is just part of life. Once the life event has passed, rapid weight loss can be attempted again. In the “rescue plans” that were integral to the DiRECT study, participants were offered further periods of total diet replacement, depending on quantity of weight gain. In fact, 50% of participants in DiRECT required rescue therapy, and their outcomes, reassuringly, were the same as the other 50%.
Dr. Taylor also quoted data from the ReTUNE study suggesting that weight regain was less of an issue for those with initial BMI of 21-27, and there is “more bang for your buck” in approaching remission of T2D in patients with lower BMI. The fact that people with normal or near-normal BMI can also reverse their T2D was also a game changer for my clinical practice; the concept of an individual or personal fat threshold that results in T2D offers a pragmatic explanation to patients with T2D who are frustrated by the lack of improvements in cardiometabolic parameters despite significant weight loss.
Finally, Dr. Taylor acknowledged the breadth of the definition of T2D remission: A1c < 48 mmol/mol at least 2 months off all antidiabetic medication. This definition includes A1c values within the “prediabetes” range: 42-47 mmol/mol.
He cited 10-year cardiovascular risk data driven by hypertension and dyslipidemia before significant weight loss and compared it with 10-year cardiovascular risk data after significant weight loss. Cardiovascular risk profile was more favorable after weight loss, compared with controls with prediabetes without weight loss, even though some of the intervention group who lost significant weight still had an A1c of 42-47 mmol/mol. Dr. Taylor suggested that we not label these individuals who have lost significant weight as having prediabetes. Instead “postdiabetes” should be preferred, because these patients had more favorable cardiovascular profiles.
This is a very important take-home message for primary care: prediabetes is more than just dysglycemia.
New terminology proposed
Dr. Khunti outlined a recent large, systematic review that concluded that the definition of T2D remission encompassed substantial heterogeneity. This heterogeneity complicates the interpretation of previous research on T2D remission and complicates the implementation of remission pathways into routine clinical practice. Furthermore, Dr. Khunti highlighted a recent consensus report on the definition and interpretation of remission in T2D that explicitly stated that the underlying pathophysiology of T2D is rarely normalized completely by interventions, thus reducing the possibility of lasting remission.
Dr. Khunti also challenged the cardiovascular benefits seen after T2D remission. Recent Danish registry data were presented, demonstrating a twofold increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years in individuals who achieved remission of T2D, but not on glucose-lowering drug therapy.
Adherence to strict dietary interventions in the longer term was also addressed. Diet-induced weight loss causes changes in circulating hormones such as ghrelin, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), and leptin, which mediate appetite and drive hunger and an increased preference for energy-dense foods (that is, high-fat or sugary foods), all of which encourage weight regain. Dr. Khunti suggested that other interventions, such as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or bariatric surgery, specifically target some of these hormonal responses.
The challenges in recruitment and retention for lifestyle studies were also discussed; they reflect the challenges of behavioral programs in primary care. The DiRECT study had 20% participation of screened candidates and an attrition rate approaching 30%. The seminal Diabetes Prevention Program study and Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study had similar results. At a population level, individuals do not appear to want to participate in behavioral programs.
Dr. Khunti also warned that the review of annual care processes for diabetes is declining for patients who had achieved remission, possibly because of a false sense of reassurance among health care professionals. It is essential that all those in remission remain under at least annual follow-up, because there is still a risk for future microvascular and macrovascular complications, especially in the event of weight regain.
Dr. Khunti concluded by proposing new terminology for remission: remission of hyperglycemia or euglycemia, aiming for A1c < 48 mmol/mol with or without glucose-lowering therapy. I do agree with this; it reflects the zeitgeist of cardiorenal protective diabetes therapies and is analogous to rheumatoid arthritis, where remission is defined as no disease activity while on therapy. But one size does not fit all.
Sir William Osler’s words provide a fitting conclusion: “If it were not for the great variability among individuals, medicine might as well be a science and not an art.”
Dr. Fernando has disclosed that he has received speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Beyond A1c: Implementing the new ESC 2023 guidelines
A significant mortality gap persists between patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and similarly aged patients with neither condition. Data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration showed that on average, a 60-year-old female patient with type 2 diabetes and a history of myocardial infarction dies around 14 years earlier than a similarly aged patient with neither of these conditions.
Therefore, I was keen to hear the key new recommendations from the 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. These recommendations were presented at the recent ESC 2023 congress in Amsterdam, which I was fortunate enough to attend.
Of course, good glycemic control remains important to protect against the microvascular complications of diabetes, but glycemic control has only a modest impact on macrovascular complications such as cardiovascular disease.
The updated guideline recommends that all patients with type 2 diabetes without symptomatic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or severe target-organ damage be screened for the risk for cardiovascular disease using a new 10-year cardiovascular risk calculator called SCORE2-Diabetes. This calculator extends the well-established SCORE2 cardiovascular risk-prediction tool with added predictors specifically related to type 2 diabetes. It also accounts for variation in risk across Europe.
Using SCORE2 Diabetes will be a change in practice for me, as I have been using QRISK3, which is a United Kingdom–based cardiovascular risk tool that has been less extensively validated in patients with type 2 diabetes. Helpfully, an ESC CVD Risk Calculation app is available and can be tailored to your geographical region to calculate a SCORE2-Diabetes risk score easily. For example, Eastern Europe has a higher cardiovascular risk profile than Western Europe.
Cardiovascular risk categories are now defined on the basis of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe target-organ damage, or the 10-year cardiovascular risk using SCORE2-Diabetes.
For patients at very high cardiovascular risk (for example, those with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), the ESC guidance recommends dual therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of glucose control (that is, A1c). This dual therapy is recommended in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering therapies.
There is no doubt that the evidence for GLP-1 receptor agonist use and reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes is compelling, perhaps more so than the evidence for SGLT2 inhibitor use. However, this recommendation will be challenging to implement, given the current global supply issues with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which are driven by the off-label use of these medications for the management of obesity. GLP-1 receptor agonist supplies are not expected to stabilize until mid-2024.
Controversially, the updated ESC guidance suggests the use of metformin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease if additional glucose control is required. This is a misstep, in my opinion, as insulin resistance is one of the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the key advantages of metformin is an improvement in insulin sensitivity. This recommendation will not change my practice, and I will continue to prescribe metformin alongside GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors for my patients at highest cardiovascular risk.
The updated ESC guidance also explicitly reminds healthcare professionals to look for significant comorbidities, such as heart failure of all subtypes and chronic kidney disease.
The ESC guidance recommends a systematic survey for heart failure symptoms and signs at each clinical encounter in all patients with type 2 diabetes. Although I agree that heart failure is underdiagnosed in this population, the recommendation will be challenging to implement and has significant workload implications, as heart failure often presents in insidious, nonspecific ways in primary care.
For patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Again, this recommendation is independent of glycemic control. In addition, for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (that is, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%), SGLT2 inhibitors are also recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death independent of glycemic control. This recommendation is consistent with other updated global heart failure guidance. Increasingly, the pillars of heart failure therapy are being challenged with the early initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors, given their compelling evidence base, early symptomatic benefit, and ease of use, with less requirement of routine blood monitoring.
Finally, for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone are now recommended to reduce the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular disease, independent of glycemic control and in addition to standard of care.
Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist with quite different pharmacokinetics and clinical effects, compared with those of spironolactone and eplerenone, which are steroidal MRAs. Specifically, finerenone does not significantly lower blood pressure and has fewer steroid-induced adverse effects such as gynecomastia, impotence, and low libido. However, like steroidal MRAs, finerenone can result in hyperkalemia.
Finerenone has demonstrated significant kidney and cardiovascular benefits across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It entails no significant imbalance in adverse events, hence this recommendation. This observation reinforces the importance of measuring urinary albumin–creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function.
In conclusion, the 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes are forward-thinking recommendations. They look beyond glycemia and reflect the current evidence for newer glucose-lowering therapies with proven cardiorenal benefits. Nevertheless, the implementation of these guidelines will be challenging, given their workload implications, the unstable supply of GLP-1 receptor agonists, and a persisting glucocentric approach to type 2 diabetes care in some areas. Implementation will require ongoing education for health care professionals about the risk-benefit ratios of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. It also will require a re-evaluation of workforce strategy to support the development of a skilled and sustainable workforce.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner partner with North Berwick (Scotland) Health Centre, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education. He disclosed receiving speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A significant mortality gap persists between patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and similarly aged patients with neither condition. Data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration showed that on average, a 60-year-old female patient with type 2 diabetes and a history of myocardial infarction dies around 14 years earlier than a similarly aged patient with neither of these conditions.
Therefore, I was keen to hear the key new recommendations from the 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. These recommendations were presented at the recent ESC 2023 congress in Amsterdam, which I was fortunate enough to attend.
Of course, good glycemic control remains important to protect against the microvascular complications of diabetes, but glycemic control has only a modest impact on macrovascular complications such as cardiovascular disease.
The updated guideline recommends that all patients with type 2 diabetes without symptomatic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or severe target-organ damage be screened for the risk for cardiovascular disease using a new 10-year cardiovascular risk calculator called SCORE2-Diabetes. This calculator extends the well-established SCORE2 cardiovascular risk-prediction tool with added predictors specifically related to type 2 diabetes. It also accounts for variation in risk across Europe.
Using SCORE2 Diabetes will be a change in practice for me, as I have been using QRISK3, which is a United Kingdom–based cardiovascular risk tool that has been less extensively validated in patients with type 2 diabetes. Helpfully, an ESC CVD Risk Calculation app is available and can be tailored to your geographical region to calculate a SCORE2-Diabetes risk score easily. For example, Eastern Europe has a higher cardiovascular risk profile than Western Europe.
Cardiovascular risk categories are now defined on the basis of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe target-organ damage, or the 10-year cardiovascular risk using SCORE2-Diabetes.
For patients at very high cardiovascular risk (for example, those with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), the ESC guidance recommends dual therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of glucose control (that is, A1c). This dual therapy is recommended in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering therapies.
There is no doubt that the evidence for GLP-1 receptor agonist use and reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes is compelling, perhaps more so than the evidence for SGLT2 inhibitor use. However, this recommendation will be challenging to implement, given the current global supply issues with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which are driven by the off-label use of these medications for the management of obesity. GLP-1 receptor agonist supplies are not expected to stabilize until mid-2024.
Controversially, the updated ESC guidance suggests the use of metformin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease if additional glucose control is required. This is a misstep, in my opinion, as insulin resistance is one of the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the key advantages of metformin is an improvement in insulin sensitivity. This recommendation will not change my practice, and I will continue to prescribe metformin alongside GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors for my patients at highest cardiovascular risk.
The updated ESC guidance also explicitly reminds healthcare professionals to look for significant comorbidities, such as heart failure of all subtypes and chronic kidney disease.
The ESC guidance recommends a systematic survey for heart failure symptoms and signs at each clinical encounter in all patients with type 2 diabetes. Although I agree that heart failure is underdiagnosed in this population, the recommendation will be challenging to implement and has significant workload implications, as heart failure often presents in insidious, nonspecific ways in primary care.
For patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Again, this recommendation is independent of glycemic control. In addition, for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (that is, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%), SGLT2 inhibitors are also recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death independent of glycemic control. This recommendation is consistent with other updated global heart failure guidance. Increasingly, the pillars of heart failure therapy are being challenged with the early initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors, given their compelling evidence base, early symptomatic benefit, and ease of use, with less requirement of routine blood monitoring.
Finally, for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone are now recommended to reduce the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular disease, independent of glycemic control and in addition to standard of care.
Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist with quite different pharmacokinetics and clinical effects, compared with those of spironolactone and eplerenone, which are steroidal MRAs. Specifically, finerenone does not significantly lower blood pressure and has fewer steroid-induced adverse effects such as gynecomastia, impotence, and low libido. However, like steroidal MRAs, finerenone can result in hyperkalemia.
Finerenone has demonstrated significant kidney and cardiovascular benefits across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It entails no significant imbalance in adverse events, hence this recommendation. This observation reinforces the importance of measuring urinary albumin–creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function.
In conclusion, the 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes are forward-thinking recommendations. They look beyond glycemia and reflect the current evidence for newer glucose-lowering therapies with proven cardiorenal benefits. Nevertheless, the implementation of these guidelines will be challenging, given their workload implications, the unstable supply of GLP-1 receptor agonists, and a persisting glucocentric approach to type 2 diabetes care in some areas. Implementation will require ongoing education for health care professionals about the risk-benefit ratios of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. It also will require a re-evaluation of workforce strategy to support the development of a skilled and sustainable workforce.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner partner with North Berwick (Scotland) Health Centre, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education. He disclosed receiving speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A significant mortality gap persists between patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and similarly aged patients with neither condition. Data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration showed that on average, a 60-year-old female patient with type 2 diabetes and a history of myocardial infarction dies around 14 years earlier than a similarly aged patient with neither of these conditions.
Therefore, I was keen to hear the key new recommendations from the 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. These recommendations were presented at the recent ESC 2023 congress in Amsterdam, which I was fortunate enough to attend.
Of course, good glycemic control remains important to protect against the microvascular complications of diabetes, but glycemic control has only a modest impact on macrovascular complications such as cardiovascular disease.
The updated guideline recommends that all patients with type 2 diabetes without symptomatic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or severe target-organ damage be screened for the risk for cardiovascular disease using a new 10-year cardiovascular risk calculator called SCORE2-Diabetes. This calculator extends the well-established SCORE2 cardiovascular risk-prediction tool with added predictors specifically related to type 2 diabetes. It also accounts for variation in risk across Europe.
Using SCORE2 Diabetes will be a change in practice for me, as I have been using QRISK3, which is a United Kingdom–based cardiovascular risk tool that has been less extensively validated in patients with type 2 diabetes. Helpfully, an ESC CVD Risk Calculation app is available and can be tailored to your geographical region to calculate a SCORE2-Diabetes risk score easily. For example, Eastern Europe has a higher cardiovascular risk profile than Western Europe.
Cardiovascular risk categories are now defined on the basis of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, severe target-organ damage, or the 10-year cardiovascular risk using SCORE2-Diabetes.
For patients at very high cardiovascular risk (for example, those with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), the ESC guidance recommends dual therapy with a GLP-1 receptor agonist and an SGLT2 inhibitor to reduce cardiovascular risk independent of glucose control (that is, A1c). This dual therapy is recommended in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet, antihypertensive, and lipid-lowering therapies.
There is no doubt that the evidence for GLP-1 receptor agonist use and reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes is compelling, perhaps more so than the evidence for SGLT2 inhibitor use. However, this recommendation will be challenging to implement, given the current global supply issues with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which are driven by the off-label use of these medications for the management of obesity. GLP-1 receptor agonist supplies are not expected to stabilize until mid-2024.
Controversially, the updated ESC guidance suggests the use of metformin only in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease if additional glucose control is required. This is a misstep, in my opinion, as insulin resistance is one of the key pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes. One of the key advantages of metformin is an improvement in insulin sensitivity. This recommendation will not change my practice, and I will continue to prescribe metformin alongside GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors for my patients at highest cardiovascular risk.
The updated ESC guidance also explicitly reminds healthcare professionals to look for significant comorbidities, such as heart failure of all subtypes and chronic kidney disease.
The ESC guidance recommends a systematic survey for heart failure symptoms and signs at each clinical encounter in all patients with type 2 diabetes. Although I agree that heart failure is underdiagnosed in this population, the recommendation will be challenging to implement and has significant workload implications, as heart failure often presents in insidious, nonspecific ways in primary care.
For patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. Again, this recommendation is independent of glycemic control. In addition, for patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (that is, left ventricular ejection fraction > 40%), SGLT2 inhibitors are also recommended to reduce the risk for heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death independent of glycemic control. This recommendation is consistent with other updated global heart failure guidance. Increasingly, the pillars of heart failure therapy are being challenged with the early initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors, given their compelling evidence base, early symptomatic benefit, and ease of use, with less requirement of routine blood monitoring.
Finally, for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, SGLT2 inhibitors and finerenone are now recommended to reduce the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular disease, independent of glycemic control and in addition to standard of care.
Finerenone is a nonsteroidal selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist with quite different pharmacokinetics and clinical effects, compared with those of spironolactone and eplerenone, which are steroidal MRAs. Specifically, finerenone does not significantly lower blood pressure and has fewer steroid-induced adverse effects such as gynecomastia, impotence, and low libido. However, like steroidal MRAs, finerenone can result in hyperkalemia.
Finerenone has demonstrated significant kidney and cardiovascular benefits across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. It entails no significant imbalance in adverse events, hence this recommendation. This observation reinforces the importance of measuring urinary albumin–creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved kidney function.
In conclusion, the 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes are forward-thinking recommendations. They look beyond glycemia and reflect the current evidence for newer glucose-lowering therapies with proven cardiorenal benefits. Nevertheless, the implementation of these guidelines will be challenging, given their workload implications, the unstable supply of GLP-1 receptor agonists, and a persisting glucocentric approach to type 2 diabetes care in some areas. Implementation will require ongoing education for health care professionals about the risk-benefit ratios of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists. It also will require a re-evaluation of workforce strategy to support the development of a skilled and sustainable workforce.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner partner with North Berwick (Scotland) Health Centre, with a specialist interest in diabetes; cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases; and medical education. He disclosed receiving speakers’ fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral GLP-1 agonists could be game changers for obesity
The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.
I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).
During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.
LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.
Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.
However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.
Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.
Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.
I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.
I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.
The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.
Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.
In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.
A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.
I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.
OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.
PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.
I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.
However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.
One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.
On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.
This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.
Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.
I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).
During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.
LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.
Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.
However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.
Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.
Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.
I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.
I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.
The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.
Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.
In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.
A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.
I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.
OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.
PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.
I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.
However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.
One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.
On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.
This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.
Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The advent of subcutaneously injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for the management of type 2 diabetes during 2005 was arguably one of the greatest therapeutic advances for the condition since metformin.
I was an early advocate of the class, given its potent glucose-lowering efficacy, secondary benefits of significant weight reduction, and a low risk for hypoglycemia (if not used alongside sulfonylureas or insulin).
During 2016, the first cardiovascular outcomes trial for a GLP-1 agonist, in the form of the LEADER study, was reported. These trials were mandated by the Food and Drug Administration in the aftermath of the rosiglitazone debacle in which the type 2 diabetes drug had its use restricted because of cardiovascular events attributed to it in a meta-analysis. These events weren’t seen in a subsequent trial, and the FDA’s restrictions were later lifted.
LEADER examined the once-daily GLP-1 agonist liraglutide and showed that, in addition to its glucose-lowering effects, liraglutide brought cardiovascular benefits to the table. Moreover, during 2019, the REWIND trial, the cardiovascular outcome trial for once-weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide, revealed the same cardiovascular benefits but also demonstrated a lower incidence of macroalbuminuria, albeit with no significant improvements in hard renal endpoints such as estimated glomerular filtration decline or rates of dialysis.
Despite these compelling benefits, the uptake of GLP-1 agonists has always been slower than that of other compelling agents such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, mainly because the latter are oral drugs, while GLP-1 agonists were initially injectable medications. This difference has proven to be a barrier for patients and clinicians alike.
However, in 2019, oral semaglutide, in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg, was approved by the FDA as the first (and still only) commercially available oral GLP-1 agonist to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. This approval was hailed as a “game changer” at the time. The treatment had no proven cardiovascular benefits, only lack of cardiovascular harm in PIONEER 6. The SOUL cardiovascular outcome trial for oral semaglutide in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg is due to be completed during 2024. But semaglutide certainly had compelling glucose-lowering efficacy and secondary benefits of significant weight loss similar to those of its injectable counterparts.
Cardiovascular benefits of injectable semaglutide for type 2 diabetes were demonstrated in the SUSTAIN-6 trial in 2016, and the U.S. label for Ozempic was amended accordingly in 2020.
Again, I was an early adopter of oral semaglutide, and it has been great for my patients with type 2 diabetes to have the option of a noninjectable GLP-1 agonist. However, it is not without its drawbacks: Oral semaglutide must be taken on an empty stomach, at least 30 minutes before any other food, drink, or medication, and with no more than 120 mL water to maximize absorption and bioavailability.
I am of South Asian origin and have a strong family history of type 2 diabetes. If I develop type 2 diabetes in the future and require treatment escalation to a GLP-1 agonist, I will most likely opt for a weekly injectable, as it would best fit my lifestyle. But having choices of preparation has been a huge advantage in helping my patients best individualize their therapies.
I attended the recent American Diabetes Association congress in San Diego, which had two interesting oral GLP-1 agonist sessions on the program.
The first discussed the efficacy and safety of a new daily oral nonpeptide GLP-1 agonist, orforglipron, for weight reduction in adults with obesity. The phase 2 results were impressive, with clinically significant reductions in weight and cardiometabolic parameters, and a reassuring safety profile similar to that of the injectable GLP-1 agonists.
Notably, because orforglipron is a nonpeptide, it can be taken without any food, water, or medication restrictions. This indeed could turn out to be a real game changer by simplifying the complex administration of oral semaglutide, which no doubt has hampered compliance.
In fact, an Association of British Clinical Diabetologists real-world audit (also presented at the ADA Congress as a poster) of oral semaglutide use for type 2 diabetes found clinically significant hemoglobin A1c and weight reductions, but perhaps less than expected when compared with the clinical trial program, which could be a sign of poor adherence.
A phase 3 trial of orforglipron is underway (ATTAIN-2), exploring its efficacy and safety in adults with obesity or overweight and type 2 diabetes, but it is not due to be completed until 2027.
I also attended the session presenting the results of the OASIS 1 and PIONEER-PLUS trials of higher-dose oral semaglutide.
OASIS 1 explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide, 50 mg once daily, for the treatment of adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes. The investigators found clinically significant reductions in body weight of around 15%-17% from baseline, compared with placebo. This result was similar to the weight loss observed in the STEP 1 trial of 2.4 mg weekly subcutaneous injectable semaglutide in adults with obesity (a much lower dose is needed when GLP-1 agonists are given as injectables because the oral forms are not very bioavailable). The side-effect profile was also similar.
PIONEER PLUS explored the efficacy and safety of high-dose oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Patients treated with 50 mg oral semaglutide had around a 2% reduction in A1c and an 8-kg (18-lb) reduction in weight from baseline. It is well known that people with obesity and type 2 diabetes lose less weight than those with obesity alone, so this result was impressive. Again, the safety profile was similar to that of the wider class, with predictably high levels of gastrointestinal side effects.
I hope that future developments bring the class to an even wider demographic and perhaps reduce some of the global inequities in managing type 2 diabetes and obesity. It should be easier (and cheaper) to mass-produce and distribute an oral medication, compared with an injectable one.
However, it should be noted that, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service tariff cost of oral semaglutide (at usual doses for type 2 diabetes) remains similar to that of injectable semaglutide (at doses for type 2 diabetes rather than obesity). And notably, the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether new drugs will be funded on the NHS, has recently delayed its decision on approving tirzepatide, a dual GLP-1 and GIP agonist, for type 2 diabetes, citing the requirement for further evidence for its clinical and cost-effectiveness. This is not uncommon for NICE, and I fully expect tirzepatide to gain NICE approval on resubmission later in 2023.
One solution to contain costs might be a phased approach to the management of obesity, with initial stages using highly efficacious obesity drugs such as tirzepatide, injectable semaglutide, or high-dose oral semaglutide, and then transitioning to lower-efficacy and cheaper obesity drugs for weight maintenance.
On this note, a generic version of liraglutide (a once-daily injectable GLP-1 agonist) will be available during 2024. Moreover, it will be interesting to see the cost of orforglipron, assuming that it is approved, when it becomes commercially available in a few years, given that a nonpeptide agent should be cheaper to produce than a peptide-like semaglutide.
This phased approach is analogous to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, where potent targeted biologic therapy is often used early on to achieve remission of rheumatoid arthritis, followed by a switch to a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for maintenance therapy, for reasons of long-term safety and health economics.
Using this approach for obesity management might help the sustainability of health care systems.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Tirzepatide: Therapeutic titan or costly cure?
As a general practitioner with a specialist interest in diabetes, I am increasingly diagnosing younger people living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Sadly, my youngest patient living with type 2 diabetes and obesity is only in her early 20s.
In fact, in England, there are now more people under the age of 40 years living with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes. These younger individuals tend to present with very high hemoglobin A1c levels; I am routinely seeing double-digit A1c percentage levels in my practice. Indeed, the patient mentioned above presented with an A1c of more than 13%.
The lifetime cardiometabolic risk of individuals like her is considerable and very worrying: Younger adults with type 2 diabetes often have adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles at diagnosis, with higher body mass indices, marked dyslipidemia, hypertension, and abnormal liver profiles suggesting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The cumulative impact of this risk profile is a significant impact on quality and quantity of life. Evidence tells us that a younger age of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for premature death, especially from cardiovascular disease.
Early treatment intensification is warranted in younger individuals living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. My patient above is now on triple therapy with metformin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. I gave her an urgent referral to my local weight management service for weight, nutritional, and psychological support. I have also issued her a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) device: Whilst she does not meet any current U.K. criteria for using rt-CGM, I feel that the role of CGM as an educational tool for her is invaluable and equally important to her pharmacologic therapies. We are in desperate need of effective pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions to tackle this epidemic of cardiometabolic disease in the young.
I attended the recent ADA 2023 congress in San Diego, including the presentation of the SURMOUNT-2 trial data. SURMOUNT-2 explored the efficacy and safety of the dual GLP-GIP agonist tirzepatide for weight management in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in weight (average weight loss, 14-16 kg after 72 weeks) and glycemia (2.1% reduction in A1c after 72 weeks), as well as reductions in clinically meaningful cardiometabolic risk factors, including systolic blood pressure, liver enzymes, and fasting non–HDL cholesterol levels. The overall safety profile of tirzepatide was also reassuring and consistent with the GLP-1 class. Most adverse effects were gastrointestinal and of mild to moderate severity. These adverse effects decreased over time.
These results perfectly position tirzepatide for my younger patients like the young woman mentioned above. The significant improvements in weight, glycemia, and cardiometabolic risk factors will not only help mitigate her future cardiometabolic risk but also help the sustainability of the U.K.’s National Health System. The cost of diabetes to the NHS in the United Kingdom is more than 10% of the entire NHS budget for England and Wales. More than 80% of this cost, however, is related not to the medications and devices we prescribe for diabetes but to the downstream complications of diabetes, such as hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and amputations, as well as regular hospital attendance for dialysis for end-stage kidney disease.
There is no doubt, however, that modern obesity medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide are expensive, and demand has been astronomical. This demand has been driven by private weight-management services and celebrity influencers, and has resulted in major U.K.-wide GLP-1 shortages.
This situation is tragically widening health inequalities, as many of my patients who have been on GLP-1 receptor agonists for many years are unable to obtain them. I am having to consider switching therapies, often to less efficacious options without the compelling cardiorenal benefits. Furthermore, the GLP-1 shortages have prevented GLP-1 initiation for my other high-risk younger patients, potentially increasing future cardiometabolic risk.
There remain unanswered questions for tirzepatide: What is the durability of effect of tirzepatide after 72 weeks (that is, the trial duration of SURMOUNT-2)? Crucially, what is the effect of withdrawal of tirzepatide on weight loss maintenance? Previous evidence has suggested weight regain after discontinuation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity. This, of course, has further financial and sustainability implications for health care systems such as the NHS.
Finally, we are increasingly seeing younger women of childbearing age with or at risk for cardiometabolic disease. Again, my patient above is one example. Many of the therapies we use for cardiometabolic disease management, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and tirzepatide, have not been studied, and hence have not been licensed in pregnant women. Therefore, frank discussions are required with patients about future family plans and the importance of contraception. Often, the significant weight loss seen with GLP-1 receptor agonists can improve hormonal profiles and fertility in women and result in unexpected pregnancies if robust contraception is not in place.
Tirzepatide has yet to be made commercially available in the United Kingdom, and its price has also yet to be set. But I already envision a clear role for tirzepatide in my treatment armamentarium. I will be positioning tirzepatide as my first injectable of choice after oral treatment escalation with metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor in all my patients who require treatment intensification – not just my younger, higher-risk individuals. This may remain an aspirational goal until supply chains and cost are defined. There is no doubt, however, that the compelling weight and glycemic benefits of tirzepatide alongside individualized lifestyle interventions can help improve the quality and quantity of life of my patients living with type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk..
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As a general practitioner with a specialist interest in diabetes, I am increasingly diagnosing younger people living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Sadly, my youngest patient living with type 2 diabetes and obesity is only in her early 20s.
In fact, in England, there are now more people under the age of 40 years living with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes. These younger individuals tend to present with very high hemoglobin A1c levels; I am routinely seeing double-digit A1c percentage levels in my practice. Indeed, the patient mentioned above presented with an A1c of more than 13%.
The lifetime cardiometabolic risk of individuals like her is considerable and very worrying: Younger adults with type 2 diabetes often have adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles at diagnosis, with higher body mass indices, marked dyslipidemia, hypertension, and abnormal liver profiles suggesting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The cumulative impact of this risk profile is a significant impact on quality and quantity of life. Evidence tells us that a younger age of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for premature death, especially from cardiovascular disease.
Early treatment intensification is warranted in younger individuals living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. My patient above is now on triple therapy with metformin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. I gave her an urgent referral to my local weight management service for weight, nutritional, and psychological support. I have also issued her a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) device: Whilst she does not meet any current U.K. criteria for using rt-CGM, I feel that the role of CGM as an educational tool for her is invaluable and equally important to her pharmacologic therapies. We are in desperate need of effective pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions to tackle this epidemic of cardiometabolic disease in the young.
I attended the recent ADA 2023 congress in San Diego, including the presentation of the SURMOUNT-2 trial data. SURMOUNT-2 explored the efficacy and safety of the dual GLP-GIP agonist tirzepatide for weight management in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in weight (average weight loss, 14-16 kg after 72 weeks) and glycemia (2.1% reduction in A1c after 72 weeks), as well as reductions in clinically meaningful cardiometabolic risk factors, including systolic blood pressure, liver enzymes, and fasting non–HDL cholesterol levels. The overall safety profile of tirzepatide was also reassuring and consistent with the GLP-1 class. Most adverse effects were gastrointestinal and of mild to moderate severity. These adverse effects decreased over time.
These results perfectly position tirzepatide for my younger patients like the young woman mentioned above. The significant improvements in weight, glycemia, and cardiometabolic risk factors will not only help mitigate her future cardiometabolic risk but also help the sustainability of the U.K.’s National Health System. The cost of diabetes to the NHS in the United Kingdom is more than 10% of the entire NHS budget for England and Wales. More than 80% of this cost, however, is related not to the medications and devices we prescribe for diabetes but to the downstream complications of diabetes, such as hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and amputations, as well as regular hospital attendance for dialysis for end-stage kidney disease.
There is no doubt, however, that modern obesity medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide are expensive, and demand has been astronomical. This demand has been driven by private weight-management services and celebrity influencers, and has resulted in major U.K.-wide GLP-1 shortages.
This situation is tragically widening health inequalities, as many of my patients who have been on GLP-1 receptor agonists for many years are unable to obtain them. I am having to consider switching therapies, often to less efficacious options without the compelling cardiorenal benefits. Furthermore, the GLP-1 shortages have prevented GLP-1 initiation for my other high-risk younger patients, potentially increasing future cardiometabolic risk.
There remain unanswered questions for tirzepatide: What is the durability of effect of tirzepatide after 72 weeks (that is, the trial duration of SURMOUNT-2)? Crucially, what is the effect of withdrawal of tirzepatide on weight loss maintenance? Previous evidence has suggested weight regain after discontinuation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity. This, of course, has further financial and sustainability implications for health care systems such as the NHS.
Finally, we are increasingly seeing younger women of childbearing age with or at risk for cardiometabolic disease. Again, my patient above is one example. Many of the therapies we use for cardiometabolic disease management, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and tirzepatide, have not been studied, and hence have not been licensed in pregnant women. Therefore, frank discussions are required with patients about future family plans and the importance of contraception. Often, the significant weight loss seen with GLP-1 receptor agonists can improve hormonal profiles and fertility in women and result in unexpected pregnancies if robust contraception is not in place.
Tirzepatide has yet to be made commercially available in the United Kingdom, and its price has also yet to be set. But I already envision a clear role for tirzepatide in my treatment armamentarium. I will be positioning tirzepatide as my first injectable of choice after oral treatment escalation with metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor in all my patients who require treatment intensification – not just my younger, higher-risk individuals. This may remain an aspirational goal until supply chains and cost are defined. There is no doubt, however, that the compelling weight and glycemic benefits of tirzepatide alongside individualized lifestyle interventions can help improve the quality and quantity of life of my patients living with type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk..
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As a general practitioner with a specialist interest in diabetes, I am increasingly diagnosing younger people living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Sadly, my youngest patient living with type 2 diabetes and obesity is only in her early 20s.
In fact, in England, there are now more people under the age of 40 years living with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes. These younger individuals tend to present with very high hemoglobin A1c levels; I am routinely seeing double-digit A1c percentage levels in my practice. Indeed, the patient mentioned above presented with an A1c of more than 13%.
The lifetime cardiometabolic risk of individuals like her is considerable and very worrying: Younger adults with type 2 diabetes often have adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles at diagnosis, with higher body mass indices, marked dyslipidemia, hypertension, and abnormal liver profiles suggesting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The cumulative impact of this risk profile is a significant impact on quality and quantity of life. Evidence tells us that a younger age of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for premature death, especially from cardiovascular disease.
Early treatment intensification is warranted in younger individuals living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. My patient above is now on triple therapy with metformin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. I gave her an urgent referral to my local weight management service for weight, nutritional, and psychological support. I have also issued her a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) device: Whilst she does not meet any current U.K. criteria for using rt-CGM, I feel that the role of CGM as an educational tool for her is invaluable and equally important to her pharmacologic therapies. We are in desperate need of effective pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions to tackle this epidemic of cardiometabolic disease in the young.
I attended the recent ADA 2023 congress in San Diego, including the presentation of the SURMOUNT-2 trial data. SURMOUNT-2 explored the efficacy and safety of the dual GLP-GIP agonist tirzepatide for weight management in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in weight (average weight loss, 14-16 kg after 72 weeks) and glycemia (2.1% reduction in A1c after 72 weeks), as well as reductions in clinically meaningful cardiometabolic risk factors, including systolic blood pressure, liver enzymes, and fasting non–HDL cholesterol levels. The overall safety profile of tirzepatide was also reassuring and consistent with the GLP-1 class. Most adverse effects were gastrointestinal and of mild to moderate severity. These adverse effects decreased over time.
These results perfectly position tirzepatide for my younger patients like the young woman mentioned above. The significant improvements in weight, glycemia, and cardiometabolic risk factors will not only help mitigate her future cardiometabolic risk but also help the sustainability of the U.K.’s National Health System. The cost of diabetes to the NHS in the United Kingdom is more than 10% of the entire NHS budget for England and Wales. More than 80% of this cost, however, is related not to the medications and devices we prescribe for diabetes but to the downstream complications of diabetes, such as hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and amputations, as well as regular hospital attendance for dialysis for end-stage kidney disease.
There is no doubt, however, that modern obesity medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide are expensive, and demand has been astronomical. This demand has been driven by private weight-management services and celebrity influencers, and has resulted in major U.K.-wide GLP-1 shortages.
This situation is tragically widening health inequalities, as many of my patients who have been on GLP-1 receptor agonists for many years are unable to obtain them. I am having to consider switching therapies, often to less efficacious options without the compelling cardiorenal benefits. Furthermore, the GLP-1 shortages have prevented GLP-1 initiation for my other high-risk younger patients, potentially increasing future cardiometabolic risk.
There remain unanswered questions for tirzepatide: What is the durability of effect of tirzepatide after 72 weeks (that is, the trial duration of SURMOUNT-2)? Crucially, what is the effect of withdrawal of tirzepatide on weight loss maintenance? Previous evidence has suggested weight regain after discontinuation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity. This, of course, has further financial and sustainability implications for health care systems such as the NHS.
Finally, we are increasingly seeing younger women of childbearing age with or at risk for cardiometabolic disease. Again, my patient above is one example. Many of the therapies we use for cardiometabolic disease management, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and tirzepatide, have not been studied, and hence have not been licensed in pregnant women. Therefore, frank discussions are required with patients about future family plans and the importance of contraception. Often, the significant weight loss seen with GLP-1 receptor agonists can improve hormonal profiles and fertility in women and result in unexpected pregnancies if robust contraception is not in place.
Tirzepatide has yet to be made commercially available in the United Kingdom, and its price has also yet to be set. But I already envision a clear role for tirzepatide in my treatment armamentarium. I will be positioning tirzepatide as my first injectable of choice after oral treatment escalation with metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor in all my patients who require treatment intensification – not just my younger, higher-risk individuals. This may remain an aspirational goal until supply chains and cost are defined. There is no doubt, however, that the compelling weight and glycemic benefits of tirzepatide alongside individualized lifestyle interventions can help improve the quality and quantity of life of my patients living with type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk..
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.