Miriam E. Tucker

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association provides advice on the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems in hospital settings, based in part on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement, Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings, was published on October 25, 2024, in Diabetes Care.

“This is something that requires close collaboration with many groups in the hospital ... There needs to be really good guidance within the hospital as to when it can be used, in which patients, and what checks and balances need to be in place,” statement lead author Julie L.V. Shaw, PhD, Laboratory Director at Renfrew Victoria Hospital and St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

CGM use in the outpatient setting continues to grow, among people with type 2 as well as type 1 diabetes. The devices are worn on the body for up to 15 days via a subcutaneously-inserted sensor that detects glucose in interstitial fluid every 1-15 minutes. The readings generally track with blood glucose levels, although discrepancies can occur and may be even more relevant in hospital settings.

About 1 in 4 hospitalized patients have diabetes and/or hyperglycemia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada temporarily authorized the use of CGM systems in hospitals to supplement point-of-care glucose testing, as an emergency measure to reduce healthcare worker exposure and preserve personal protective equipment. That FDA authorization expired on November 7, 2023, and currently hospital CGM use in the United States is technically off-label, although it is often allowed for patients who already use CGM systems.

The new statement summarizes clinical study data and also addresses the potential benefits of CGM systems for inpatients, existing guidance, analytical and clinical evaluation of CGM performance, safety factors, staff training, clinical workflow, and hospital policies. Also covered are issues around quality assurance, integration of CGM data into electronic health records, cost considerations, and barriers to implementation.

The “good practice points for consideration” in the document are as follows:

• If healthcare professionals want to use CGM systems beyond their intended use, eg, to replace or reduce point-of-care glucose measurements, analytical and clinical performance should be assessed.
• The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) 2nd Edition of POCT05 — Performance Metrics for Continuous Interstitial Glucose Monitoring provides helpful guidance.
• Potential interferences that preclude patients from being eligible for CGM should be noted, and staff must be aware that CGM can’t be used for clinical decision-making in these patients.
• A CGM system and/or inpatient glycemia management committee should oversee the development and implementation of hospital-approved policies and procedures for CGM use in the hospital. This committee should have representatives from nursing leadership, physician leadership (e.g., endocrinologists, internal medicine specialists, hospitalists), laboratory, information services, hospital administration, pharmacy, and risk management/legal.
• Policies for patient-owned and hospital-owned CGM devices should be developed, and staff should be trained in their use.

“During the pandemic, there was a lot of research on CGM use in the hospital setting, so we could look at how it works and was it safe. I think we have some good data to show where it can be used,” said Shaw, who also heads the Division of Biochemistry at the Ottawa Hospital. She added, “There’s quite a bit we still don’t know, but I think with some guidance in place about when not to use it, there are certainly patient populations who could benefit from it in the hospital setting.” 

Shaw had no disclosures. Another author is general manager and medical director of the Institute for Diabetes Technology (IfDT), which carries out clinical studies, eg, with medical devices for diabetes therapy, on its own initiative and on behalf of various companies. Another author is an IfDT employee. Other authors have received speakers’ honoraria or consulting fees in the last 3 years from Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, BOYDSense, Dexcom, Lilly Deutschland, Novo Nordisk, Perfood, PharmaSens, Roche, Sinocare, Terumo, and Ypsomed.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A low-carbohydrate diet can help preserve beta-cell function in people with mild type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially allowing some to achieve target glucose levels without medication, new research suggests.

In the 12-week study of 57 people with T2D who were not using insulin, C-peptide levels were significantly higher among those randomized to receive a low-carbohydrate diet (~9% of total calories) vs a higher-carbohydrate diet (~55%). The results were published online on October 22, 2024, in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While other studies have demonstrated metabolic health benefits of low-carb diets, our results are the first to show that dietary carbohydrate restriction can improve beta-cell function ... Furthermore, the carbohydrate-restricted diet improved insulin secretion in African American patients to a much greater extent than in Caucasian Americans,” study author Marian L. Yurchishin, MS, Department of Nutrition Sciences, The University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, told Medscape Medical News.

Yurchishin added, “Our data suggests that a carbohydrate-restricted diet provides the opportunity to improve beta-cell function without the need for medication use or weight loss. This approach may be more appealing and effective for some persons with T2D, particularly in patients of African descent.”

At the same time, she clarified, “Our research should not be interpreted to mean that a carbohydrate-restricted diet can replace medical therapy in those who need it, especially patients at risk of cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease…or when medications are needed to achieve A1c targets.”

Asked to comment, Alison B. Evert, RDN, CDCES, former (now retired) manager of the Nutrition and Diabetes Education Programs at the University of Washington Medicine Primary Care, Kirkland, Washington, expressed some caveats about the findings, noting “I doubt this approach would be sustainable for the average person.” 

Evert also pointed out that the amount of fat in the carbohydrate-restricted diet — 65% of energy vs just 20% of energy with the higher-carbohydrate diet — was “extremely high ... essentially a keto diet,” and that in the real-world people might not receive education on heart-healthy fat intake. Moreover, she noted that the study’s use of grocery delivery to the participants with instructions for food preparation “is not a real-world situation either.”
 

Low-Carbohydrate Diet Increased C-Peptide Levels

The study participants were all either African American or European American. All had been diagnosed with T2D within the past 10 years, with average 4.9 years in the carbohydrate-restricted group vs 3.0 years in the higher-carbohydrate group. The two diets contained approximately the same number of calories.

All their medications were discontinued 1-2 weeks prior to baseline testing.

A hyperglycemic clamp was used to assess the acute (first-phase) and maximal (arginine-stimulated) C-peptide response to glucose at baseline and after 12 weeks of following the diets. First-phase beta-cell response to glucose was assessed at 30 minutes, insulin sensitivity was evaluated at 2 hours, and maximal beta-cell response to arginine was evaluated after another 30 minutes.

Oral glucose tolerance tests were also conducted at baseline and at 12 weeks to determine the disposition index (DI), a marker of beta-cell function that factors in both C-peptide and insulin sensitivity.

Of 65 participants enrolled, eight discontinued the study, most due to non-adherence. At 12 weeks, the acute C-peptide response from baseline was twice as high with the carbohydrate-restricted diet than with the higher-carbohydrate diet (P < .05). This difference was significant among the 37 African Americans (110% greater; P < .01) but not for the 20 European Americans.

Evert said that because people have typically lost at least 50% of their beta-cell function at the time of T2D diagnosis, “it is helpful to have return of first phase response, but long-term discontinuation of medications that also have cardioprotective function seems short sighted in this patient population.”

The overall maximal C-peptide response was 22% greater with the carbohydrate-restricted diet (P < .05), this time only significant in the European Americans (48%; P < .01) but not the African Americans.

In the combined group, the DI was 32% greater with the carbohydrate-restricted diet (P < .05) but only significantly so in the African American participants (48%; P < .01); however, no DI changes were seen with the higher-carbohydrate diet in the European American participants.

Regarding the racial differences, Yurchishin explained “Research supports the contention that the pathophysiology of T2D differs can differ among races based on genetic factors and environmental interactions that affect beta-cell function. For example, T2D onset in African Americans may be less related to obesity and insulin resistance than it is in European Americans and depend on alterations in beta-cell function to a larger degree. While sociocultural factors do influence T2D risk, other studies have also shown that there are inherent biological differences in the mechanisms that lead to beta-cell failure between races that warrant further investigation.” 

In their paper, Yurchishin and colleagues concluded, “With the caveat that carbohydrate restriction may be difficult for some patients, such a diet may allow patients with mild T2D to discontinue medication and enjoy eating meals and snacks that meet their energy needs while improving beta-cell function, an outcome that cannot be achieved with medication.” 

Evert commented, “I think it is a bit subjective to say that people following a 9% carb intake ‘will enjoy eating their meals and snacks that meet their energy needs.’ Guess they would enjoy as long as they choose very high fat, low carb foods.”

The research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the UAB Diabetes Research Center. Yurchishin was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Evert had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A low-carbohydrate diet can help preserve beta-cell function in people with mild type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially allowing some to achieve target glucose levels without medication, new research suggests.

In the 12-week study of 57 people with T2D who were not using insulin, C-peptide levels were significantly higher among those randomized to receive a low-carbohydrate diet (~9% of total calories) vs a higher-carbohydrate diet (~55%). The results were published online on October 22, 2024, in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While other studies have demonstrated metabolic health benefits of low-carb diets, our results are the first to show that dietary carbohydrate restriction can improve beta-cell function ... Furthermore, the carbohydrate-restricted diet improved insulin secretion in African American patients to a much greater extent than in Caucasian Americans,” study author Marian L. Yurchishin, MS, Department of Nutrition Sciences, The University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, told Medscape Medical News.

Yurchishin added, “Our data suggests that a carbohydrate-restricted diet provides the opportunity to improve beta-cell function without the need for medication use or weight loss. This approach may be more appealing and effective for some persons with T2D, particularly in patients of African descent.”

At the same time, she clarified, “Our research should not be interpreted to mean that a carbohydrate-restricted diet can replace medical therapy in those who need it, especially patients at risk of cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease…or when medications are needed to achieve A1c targets.”

Asked to comment, Alison B. Evert, RDN, CDCES, former (now retired) manager of the Nutrition and Diabetes Education Programs at the University of Washington Medicine Primary Care, Kirkland, Washington, expressed some caveats about the findings, noting “I doubt this approach would be sustainable for the average person.” 

Evert also pointed out that the amount of fat in the carbohydrate-restricted diet — 65% of energy vs just 20% of energy with the higher-carbohydrate diet — was “extremely high ... essentially a keto diet,” and that in the real-world people might not receive education on heart-healthy fat intake. Moreover, she noted that the study’s use of grocery delivery to the participants with instructions for food preparation “is not a real-world situation either.”
 

Low-Carbohydrate Diet Increased C-Peptide Levels

The study participants were all either African American or European American. All had been diagnosed with T2D within the past 10 years, with average 4.9 years in the carbohydrate-restricted group vs 3.0 years in the higher-carbohydrate group. The two diets contained approximately the same number of calories.

All their medications were discontinued 1-2 weeks prior to baseline testing.

A hyperglycemic clamp was used to assess the acute (first-phase) and maximal (arginine-stimulated) C-peptide response to glucose at baseline and after 12 weeks of following the diets. First-phase beta-cell response to glucose was assessed at 30 minutes, insulin sensitivity was evaluated at 2 hours, and maximal beta-cell response to arginine was evaluated after another 30 minutes.

Oral glucose tolerance tests were also conducted at baseline and at 12 weeks to determine the disposition index (DI), a marker of beta-cell function that factors in both C-peptide and insulin sensitivity.

Of 65 participants enrolled, eight discontinued the study, most due to non-adherence. At 12 weeks, the acute C-peptide response from baseline was twice as high with the carbohydrate-restricted diet than with the higher-carbohydrate diet (P < .05). This difference was significant among the 37 African Americans (110% greater; P < .01) but not for the 20 European Americans.

Evert said that because people have typically lost at least 50% of their beta-cell function at the time of T2D diagnosis, “it is helpful to have return of first phase response, but long-term discontinuation of medications that also have cardioprotective function seems short sighted in this patient population.”

The overall maximal C-peptide response was 22% greater with the carbohydrate-restricted diet (P < .05), this time only significant in the European Americans (48%; P < .01) but not the African Americans.

In the combined group, the DI was 32% greater with the carbohydrate-restricted diet (P < .05) but only significantly so in the African American participants (48%; P < .01); however, no DI changes were seen with the higher-carbohydrate diet in the European American participants.

Regarding the racial differences, Yurchishin explained “Research supports the contention that the pathophysiology of T2D differs can differ among races based on genetic factors and environmental interactions that affect beta-cell function. For example, T2D onset in African Americans may be less related to obesity and insulin resistance than it is in European Americans and depend on alterations in beta-cell function to a larger degree. While sociocultural factors do influence T2D risk, other studies have also shown that there are inherent biological differences in the mechanisms that lead to beta-cell failure between races that warrant further investigation.” 

In their paper, Yurchishin and colleagues concluded, “With the caveat that carbohydrate restriction may be difficult for some patients, such a diet may allow patients with mild T2D to discontinue medication and enjoy eating meals and snacks that meet their energy needs while improving beta-cell function, an outcome that cannot be achieved with medication.” 

Evert commented, “I think it is a bit subjective to say that people following a 9% carb intake ‘will enjoy eating their meals and snacks that meet their energy needs.’ Guess they would enjoy as long as they choose very high fat, low carb foods.”

The research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the UAB Diabetes Research Center. Yurchishin was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Evert had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A low-carbohydrate diet can help preserve beta-cell function in people with mild type 2 diabetes (T2D), potentially allowing some to achieve target glucose levels without medication, new research suggests.

In the 12-week study of 57 people with T2D who were not using insulin, C-peptide levels were significantly higher among those randomized to receive a low-carbohydrate diet (~9% of total calories) vs a higher-carbohydrate diet (~55%). The results were published online on October 22, 2024, in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“While other studies have demonstrated metabolic health benefits of low-carb diets, our results are the first to show that dietary carbohydrate restriction can improve beta-cell function ... Furthermore, the carbohydrate-restricted diet improved insulin secretion in African American patients to a much greater extent than in Caucasian Americans,” study author Marian L. Yurchishin, MS, Department of Nutrition Sciences, The University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, told Medscape Medical News.

Yurchishin added, “Our data suggests that a carbohydrate-restricted diet provides the opportunity to improve beta-cell function without the need for medication use or weight loss. This approach may be more appealing and effective for some persons with T2D, particularly in patients of African descent.”

At the same time, she clarified, “Our research should not be interpreted to mean that a carbohydrate-restricted diet can replace medical therapy in those who need it, especially patients at risk of cardiovascular disease, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease…or when medications are needed to achieve A1c targets.”

Asked to comment, Alison B. Evert, RDN, CDCES, former (now retired) manager of the Nutrition and Diabetes Education Programs at the University of Washington Medicine Primary Care, Kirkland, Washington, expressed some caveats about the findings, noting “I doubt this approach would be sustainable for the average person.” 

Evert also pointed out that the amount of fat in the carbohydrate-restricted diet — 65% of energy vs just 20% of energy with the higher-carbohydrate diet — was “extremely high ... essentially a keto diet,” and that in the real-world people might not receive education on heart-healthy fat intake. Moreover, she noted that the study’s use of grocery delivery to the participants with instructions for food preparation “is not a real-world situation either.”
 

Low-Carbohydrate Diet Increased C-Peptide Levels

The study participants were all either African American or European American. All had been diagnosed with T2D within the past 10 years, with average 4.9 years in the carbohydrate-restricted group vs 3.0 years in the higher-carbohydrate group. The two diets contained approximately the same number of calories.

All their medications were discontinued 1-2 weeks prior to baseline testing.

A hyperglycemic clamp was used to assess the acute (first-phase) and maximal (arginine-stimulated) C-peptide response to glucose at baseline and after 12 weeks of following the diets. First-phase beta-cell response to glucose was assessed at 30 minutes, insulin sensitivity was evaluated at 2 hours, and maximal beta-cell response to arginine was evaluated after another 30 minutes.

Oral glucose tolerance tests were also conducted at baseline and at 12 weeks to determine the disposition index (DI), a marker of beta-cell function that factors in both C-peptide and insulin sensitivity.

Of 65 participants enrolled, eight discontinued the study, most due to non-adherence. At 12 weeks, the acute C-peptide response from baseline was twice as high with the carbohydrate-restricted diet than with the higher-carbohydrate diet (P < .05). This difference was significant among the 37 African Americans (110% greater; P < .01) but not for the 20 European Americans.

Evert said that because people have typically lost at least 50% of their beta-cell function at the time of T2D diagnosis, “it is helpful to have return of first phase response, but long-term discontinuation of medications that also have cardioprotective function seems short sighted in this patient population.”

The overall maximal C-peptide response was 22% greater with the carbohydrate-restricted diet (P < .05), this time only significant in the European Americans (48%; P < .01) but not the African Americans.

In the combined group, the DI was 32% greater with the carbohydrate-restricted diet (P < .05) but only significantly so in the African American participants (48%; P < .01); however, no DI changes were seen with the higher-carbohydrate diet in the European American participants.

Regarding the racial differences, Yurchishin explained “Research supports the contention that the pathophysiology of T2D differs can differ among races based on genetic factors and environmental interactions that affect beta-cell function. For example, T2D onset in African Americans may be less related to obesity and insulin resistance than it is in European Americans and depend on alterations in beta-cell function to a larger degree. While sociocultural factors do influence T2D risk, other studies have also shown that there are inherent biological differences in the mechanisms that lead to beta-cell failure between races that warrant further investigation.” 

In their paper, Yurchishin and colleagues concluded, “With the caveat that carbohydrate restriction may be difficult for some patients, such a diet may allow patients with mild T2D to discontinue medication and enjoy eating meals and snacks that meet their energy needs while improving beta-cell function, an outcome that cannot be achieved with medication.” 

Evert commented, “I think it is a bit subjective to say that people following a 9% carb intake ‘will enjoy eating their meals and snacks that meet their energy needs.’ Guess they would enjoy as long as they choose very high fat, low carb foods.”

The research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the UAB Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the UAB Diabetes Research Center. Yurchishin was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Evert had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

Depending on one’s perspective, “mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS)” is either a relatively rare, narrowly defined severe allergic condition or a vastly underrecognized underlying cause of multiple chronic inflammatory conditions that affect roughly 17% of the entire population. 

Inappropriate activation of mast cells — now termed mast cell activation disease (MCAD) — has long been known to underlie allergic symptoms and inflammation, and far less commonly, neoplasias such as mastocytosis. The concept of chronic, persistent MCAS associated with aberrant growth and dystrophism is more recent, emerging only in the last couple of decades as a separate entity under the MCAD heading. 

Observational studies and clinical experience have linked signs and symptoms of MCAS with other inflammatory chronic conditions such as hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), and recently, long COVID. However, those conditions themselves are diagnostically challenging, and as yet there is no proof of causation.

The idea that MCAS is the entity — or at least, a key one — at the center of “a confoundingly, extraordinarily heterogeneous chronic multisystem polymorbidity” was the theme of a recent 4-day meeting of a professional group informally dubbed “Masterminds.” Since their first meeting in 2018, the group has grown from about 35 to nearly 650 multidisciplinary professionals. 

Stephanie L. Grach, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, gave an introductory talk about the importance of changing “the medical paradigm around complex chronic illness.” Much of the rest of the meeting was devoted to sharing approaches for managing MCAS comorbidities, including dysautonomia, hypermobility, and associated craniocervical dysfunction, and various other multi-system conditions characterized by chronic pain and/or fatigue. Several talks covered the use of agents that block mast cell activity as potential treatment. 

In an interview, Grach said “the meeting was an exciting example of how not only research, but also medicine, is moving forward, and it’s really cool to see that people are independently coming to very similar conclusions about shared pathologies, and because of that, the importance of overlap amongst complex medical conditions that historically have really been poorly addressed.”

She added, “mast cell activation, or mast cell hyperactivity, is one part of the greater picture. What’s important about the mast cell component is that of the multiple different targetable pathologies, it’s one that currently has potential available therapies that can be explored, some of them relatively easily.”

But Christopher Chang, MD, PhD, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology program, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, Hollywood, Florida, sees it differently. In an interview, he noted that the reason for disagreement over what constitutes MCAS is that “it doesn’t have a lot of objective findings that we can identify. ... We know that mast cells are important immune cells, just like all immune cells are important. It seems like whenever someone has unexplained symptoms, people try to blame it on mast cells. But it’s very hard to prove that.” 
 

Two Definitions Characterize the Illness Differently

One proposed “consensus” MCAS definition was first published in 2011 by a group led by hematologist Peter Valent, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna in Austria. It has been revised since, and similar versions adopted by medical societies, including the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). The most recent versions propose three core MCAS criteria: 

• Typical clinical signs of severe, recurrent (episodic) systemic (at least two organ systems) MCA are present (often in the form of anaphylaxis).
• The involvement of mast cells (MCs) is documented by biochemical studies, preferably an increase in serum tryptase levels from the individual’s baseline to plus 20% + 2 ng/mL.
• Response of symptoms to therapy with MC-stabilizing agents, drugs directed against MC mediator production, or drugs blocking mediator release or effects of MC-derived mediators.

The following year, a separate publication authored by Gerhard J. Molderings, MD, University of Bonn in Germany, and colleagues proposed a much broader MCAS definition. Also revised since, the latest “consensus-2” was published in 2020. This definition consists of one major criterion: “A constellation of clinical complaints attributable to pathologically increased MC activity, ie, MC mediator release syndrome.” This “constellation” involves conditions of nearly every organ system that, taken together, are estimated to affect up to 17% of the entire population. These are just a few examples: 

• Constitutional: Chronic fatigue, flushing, or sweats
• Dermatologic: Rashes or lesions
• Ophthalmologic: dry eyes
• Oral: Burning or itching in mouth
• Pulmonary: Airway inflammation at any/all levels
• Cardiovascular: Blood pressure lability or codiagnosis of POTS is common
• Gastrointestinal: Reflux, dysphagia, or malabsorption
• Genitourinary: Endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, or dyspareunia
• Musculoskeletal/connective tissue: Fibromyalgia or diagnosis of hypermobile EDS is common
• Neurologic: Headaches or sensory neuropathies
• Psychiatric: Depression or anxiety
• Endocrinologic: Thyroid disease or dyslipidemia
• Hematologic: Polycythemia or anemia (after ruling out other causes)

The diagnosis is made by fulfilling that major criterion, plus at least one objective assessment of pathologically increased release of MC mediators, including infiltrates, abnormal MC morphology, or MC genetic changes shown to increase MC activity. Other alternatives include evidence of above-normal levels of MC mediators, including tryptase, histamine or its metabolites, heparin, or chromatin A, in whole blood, serum, plasma, or urine. Symptomatic response to MC activation inhibitors can also be used but isn’t required as it is in the other definition. 
 

Underdiagnosis vs Overdiagnosis

Lawrence B. Afrin, MD, senior consultant in hematology/oncology at the AIM Center for Personalized Medicine, Westchester, New York, and lead author of the 2020 update of the broader “consensus-2” criteria, said in an interview, “we now know MCAS exists, and it’s prevalent, even though, for understandable and forgivable reasons, we’ve been missing it all along. ... If you see a patient who has this chronic, multisystem unwellness with general themes of inflammation plus or minus allergic issues and you can’t find some other rational explanation that better accounts for what’s going on ... then it’s reasonable to think to include MCAS in the differential diagnosis. If the patient happens not to fit the diagnostic criteria being advanced by one group, that doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that this is still going on.”

Afrin, along with his coauthors, faulted the narrower “consensus-1” definition for lacking data to support the “20% + 2” criteria for requiring the difficult determination of a patient’s “baseline” and for requiring evidence of response to treatment prior to making the diagnosis. Not all patients will respond to a given histamine blocker, he noted. 

But Lawrence B. Schwartz, MD, PhD, an author on both the Valent and AAAAI criteria, disagreed, noting that the narrower criteria “appear to have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity when the reaction is systemic and involves hypotension. Less severe clinical events, particularly involving the gastrointestinal or central nervous systems, do not have precise clinical or biomarker criteria for identifying mast cell involvement.” 

Added Schwartz, who is professor of medicine and chair of the Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology and program director of Allergy and Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), Richmond, “when mast cell activation events occur only in the skin, we refer to it as chronic urticaria and in the airways or conjunctiva of allergic individuals as allergic asthma, rhinitis, and/or conjunctivitis. The absence of specific criteria for mast cell activation in the GI [gastrointestinal] tract or CNS [central nervous system] neither rules in mast cell involvement nor does it rule out mast cell involvement. Thus, more research is needed to find better diagnostic criteria.”

Schwartz also pointed to a recent paper reporting the use of artificial intelligence models to “quantify diagnostic precision and specificity” of “alternative” MCAS definitions. The conclusion was a “lack of specificity is pronounced in relation to multiple control criteria, raising the concern that alternative criteria could disproportionately contribute to MCAS overdiagnosis, to the exclusion of more appropriate diagnoses.”

During the meeting, Afrin acknowledged that the broader view risks overdiagnosis of MCAS. However, he also referenced Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is probably the best one. “Which scenario is more likely? Multiple diagnoses and problems that are all independent of each other vs one diagnosis that’s biologically capable of causing most or all of the findings, ie, the simplest solution even if it’s not the most immediately obvious solution?”

He said in an interview: “Do we have any proof that MCAS is what’s underlying hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos or POTS or chronic fatigue? No, we don’t have any proof, not because anybody has done studies that have shown there to be no connection but simply because we’re so early in our awareness that the disease even exists that the necessary studies haven’t even been done yet.”

At the meeting, Afrin introduced proposals to turn the “Masterminds” group into a formal professional society and to launch a journal. He also gave an update on progress in developing a symptom assessment tool both for clinical use and to enable clinical trials of new drugs to target mast cells or their mediators. The plan is to field test the tool in 2025 and publish those results in 2026. 

Grach, Afrin, and Chang had no disclosures. Schwartz discovered tryptase and invented the Thermo Fisher tryptase assay, for which his institution (VCU) receives royalties that are shared with him. He also invented monoclonal antibodies used for detecting mast cells or basophils, for which VCU receives royalties from several companies, including Millipore, Santa Cruz, BioLegend, and Hycult Biotech, that are also shared with him. He is a paid consultant for Blueprint Medicines, Celldex Therapeutics, Invea, Third Harmonic Bio, HYCOR Biomedical, Jasper, TerSera Therapeutics, and GLG. He also serves on an AstraZeneca data safety monitoring board for a clinical trial involving benralizumab treatment of hypereosinophilic syndrome and receives royalties from UpToDate (biomarkers for anaphylaxis) and Goldman-Cecil Medicine (anaphylaxis).

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

A new approach to using stem cell–derived pancreatic islets has allowed a patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to come off insulin for 1 year.

The chemically induced pluripotent stem cell–derived islets came from the somatic cells of the patient, a 25-year-old woman who had lived for 11 years with unstable T1D with less than 50% time-in-target glucose range despite intensive insulin therapy. By 1 year following the transplantation of the cells into her abdomen, her glucose levels were nearly 100% in range, and her hemoglobin A1c had come down from 7.4%-8.0% to nondiabetic range (~5%).

Of note, she was already under immunosuppression for a prior liver transplant and remained on it throughout. There were no major safety concerns.

“We are very encouraged by the positive clinical findings seen in this first patient using this combination of technologies. These findings set a strong foundation for further development of stem cell–derived islet transplantation as a feasible treatment modality for diabetes,” study authors Soon Yi Liew, PhD, and Hongkui Deng, PhD, both of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, told this news organization in an email. Dr. Deng, the lead author, is the director of the university’s Institute of Stem Cell Research.

The findings were published in Cell.
 

What’s New With This Approach?

The use of the patient’s own cells is one of several ways in which this approach differs from other ongoing efforts in treating T1D with pluripotent stem cell–derived islets, such as those of the companies Vertex and Sernova, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng explained.

Another difference is that “the patient-specific stem cell–derived islets used in this study were produced from induced pluripotent stem cells generated using chemical reprogramming, which is a nontransgenic approach to inducing pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells that uses only small molecules, different from the conventional method of viral transduction of transcription factors. ... Employing small molecules as reprogramming factors provides a greater degree of control — small molecules have defined structures easily manufactured and standardized, are not genome integrating, and are cost effective,” Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said.

A third difference, they noted, is the placement of the stem cell–derived islets underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath of the patient, as opposed to the more commonly used hepatic portal vein. In addition to better ease of visualization, prior evidence suggested that this approach could lead to an improved engraftment and graft function and could circumvent graft loss from blood-mediated inflammatory responses associated with the liver site.

Moreover, they added, “to our knowledge, the rapidity with which insulin-independence was achieved post transplantation of stem cell–derived islets, 75 days post-transplantation, is also a first.”
 

Immunosuppression Remains a Challenge

Asked to comment, David M. Harlan, MD, the William and Doris Krupp professor of medicine and codirector of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, told this news organization, “on the one hand, it seems like a great breakthrough that you could take each individual cells and use those to make islets, but ... that process takes a long time, is very, very expensive, and then the T1D recipient still needs to be immunosuppressed. From a business point of view, I just don’t see it as getting any legs.”

Dr. Harlan, who had been involved in the islet transplantation field for several decades, pointed out that the additional autoimmunity of T1D poses a challenge beyond that of the body’s immune reaction to foreign tissue. “Because transplants have been around since the 1950s, we know a lot about how to prevent allogeneic rejection, from one person to another, but we know very little about how to prevent autoimmunity, so that’s still a very difficult nut to crack. I actually think the major effort should be focused on making the beta cells more hardy [via genetic modification] as opposed to focusing on the immune system. And there’s a lot of data to support that now, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Indeed, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said, “New immunomodulatory strategies to address graft longevity without immunosuppression remain to be established and tested. With reports of therapeutic efficacy of stem cell–derived islet transplantation such as with our study, stem cell–derived therapy without need for immunosuppression would be a meaningful next step in the treatment of this disease.”

The team has now performed the same procedure in two more patients and will report their data “in due course.”

Dr. Liew had no disclosures. Dr. Deng is a scientific adviser at Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Two coauthors are employees of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Another is a former employee of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience and is now affiliated with the Hangzhou Institute of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Four coauthors have patent applications related to this work. Dr. Harlan is chief scientific officer and cofounder of Stability Health. He had no other disclosures.
 

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

A new approach to using stem cell–derived pancreatic islets has allowed a patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to come off insulin for 1 year.

The chemically induced pluripotent stem cell–derived islets came from the somatic cells of the patient, a 25-year-old woman who had lived for 11 years with unstable T1D with less than 50% time-in-target glucose range despite intensive insulin therapy. By 1 year following the transplantation of the cells into her abdomen, her glucose levels were nearly 100% in range, and her hemoglobin A1c had come down from 7.4%-8.0% to nondiabetic range (~5%).

Of note, she was already under immunosuppression for a prior liver transplant and remained on it throughout. There were no major safety concerns.

“We are very encouraged by the positive clinical findings seen in this first patient using this combination of technologies. These findings set a strong foundation for further development of stem cell–derived islet transplantation as a feasible treatment modality for diabetes,” study authors Soon Yi Liew, PhD, and Hongkui Deng, PhD, both of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, told this news organization in an email. Dr. Deng, the lead author, is the director of the university’s Institute of Stem Cell Research.

The findings were published in Cell.
 

What’s New With This Approach?

The use of the patient’s own cells is one of several ways in which this approach differs from other ongoing efforts in treating T1D with pluripotent stem cell–derived islets, such as those of the companies Vertex and Sernova, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng explained.

Another difference is that “the patient-specific stem cell–derived islets used in this study were produced from induced pluripotent stem cells generated using chemical reprogramming, which is a nontransgenic approach to inducing pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells that uses only small molecules, different from the conventional method of viral transduction of transcription factors. ... Employing small molecules as reprogramming factors provides a greater degree of control — small molecules have defined structures easily manufactured and standardized, are not genome integrating, and are cost effective,” Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said.

A third difference, they noted, is the placement of the stem cell–derived islets underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath of the patient, as opposed to the more commonly used hepatic portal vein. In addition to better ease of visualization, prior evidence suggested that this approach could lead to an improved engraftment and graft function and could circumvent graft loss from blood-mediated inflammatory responses associated with the liver site.

Moreover, they added, “to our knowledge, the rapidity with which insulin-independence was achieved post transplantation of stem cell–derived islets, 75 days post-transplantation, is also a first.”
 

Immunosuppression Remains a Challenge

Asked to comment, David M. Harlan, MD, the William and Doris Krupp professor of medicine and codirector of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, told this news organization, “on the one hand, it seems like a great breakthrough that you could take each individual cells and use those to make islets, but ... that process takes a long time, is very, very expensive, and then the T1D recipient still needs to be immunosuppressed. From a business point of view, I just don’t see it as getting any legs.”

Dr. Harlan, who had been involved in the islet transplantation field for several decades, pointed out that the additional autoimmunity of T1D poses a challenge beyond that of the body’s immune reaction to foreign tissue. “Because transplants have been around since the 1950s, we know a lot about how to prevent allogeneic rejection, from one person to another, but we know very little about how to prevent autoimmunity, so that’s still a very difficult nut to crack. I actually think the major effort should be focused on making the beta cells more hardy [via genetic modification] as opposed to focusing on the immune system. And there’s a lot of data to support that now, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Indeed, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said, “New immunomodulatory strategies to address graft longevity without immunosuppression remain to be established and tested. With reports of therapeutic efficacy of stem cell–derived islet transplantation such as with our study, stem cell–derived therapy without need for immunosuppression would be a meaningful next step in the treatment of this disease.”

The team has now performed the same procedure in two more patients and will report their data “in due course.”

Dr. Liew had no disclosures. Dr. Deng is a scientific adviser at Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Two coauthors are employees of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Another is a former employee of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience and is now affiliated with the Hangzhou Institute of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Four coauthors have patent applications related to this work. Dr. Harlan is chief scientific officer and cofounder of Stability Health. He had no other disclosures.
 

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

A new approach to using stem cell–derived pancreatic islets has allowed a patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to come off insulin for 1 year.

The chemically induced pluripotent stem cell–derived islets came from the somatic cells of the patient, a 25-year-old woman who had lived for 11 years with unstable T1D with less than 50% time-in-target glucose range despite intensive insulin therapy. By 1 year following the transplantation of the cells into her abdomen, her glucose levels were nearly 100% in range, and her hemoglobin A1c had come down from 7.4%-8.0% to nondiabetic range (~5%).

Of note, she was already under immunosuppression for a prior liver transplant and remained on it throughout. There were no major safety concerns.

“We are very encouraged by the positive clinical findings seen in this first patient using this combination of technologies. These findings set a strong foundation for further development of stem cell–derived islet transplantation as a feasible treatment modality for diabetes,” study authors Soon Yi Liew, PhD, and Hongkui Deng, PhD, both of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, told this news organization in an email. Dr. Deng, the lead author, is the director of the university’s Institute of Stem Cell Research.

The findings were published in Cell.
 

What’s New With This Approach?

The use of the patient’s own cells is one of several ways in which this approach differs from other ongoing efforts in treating T1D with pluripotent stem cell–derived islets, such as those of the companies Vertex and Sernova, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng explained.

Another difference is that “the patient-specific stem cell–derived islets used in this study were produced from induced pluripotent stem cells generated using chemical reprogramming, which is a nontransgenic approach to inducing pluripotent stem cells from somatic cells that uses only small molecules, different from the conventional method of viral transduction of transcription factors. ... Employing small molecules as reprogramming factors provides a greater degree of control — small molecules have defined structures easily manufactured and standardized, are not genome integrating, and are cost effective,” Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said.

A third difference, they noted, is the placement of the stem cell–derived islets underneath the abdominal anterior rectus sheath of the patient, as opposed to the more commonly used hepatic portal vein. In addition to better ease of visualization, prior evidence suggested that this approach could lead to an improved engraftment and graft function and could circumvent graft loss from blood-mediated inflammatory responses associated with the liver site.

Moreover, they added, “to our knowledge, the rapidity with which insulin-independence was achieved post transplantation of stem cell–derived islets, 75 days post-transplantation, is also a first.”
 

Immunosuppression Remains a Challenge

Asked to comment, David M. Harlan, MD, the William and Doris Krupp professor of medicine and codirector of the Diabetes Center of Excellence at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, told this news organization, “on the one hand, it seems like a great breakthrough that you could take each individual cells and use those to make islets, but ... that process takes a long time, is very, very expensive, and then the T1D recipient still needs to be immunosuppressed. From a business point of view, I just don’t see it as getting any legs.”

Dr. Harlan, who had been involved in the islet transplantation field for several decades, pointed out that the additional autoimmunity of T1D poses a challenge beyond that of the body’s immune reaction to foreign tissue. “Because transplants have been around since the 1950s, we know a lot about how to prevent allogeneic rejection, from one person to another, but we know very little about how to prevent autoimmunity, so that’s still a very difficult nut to crack. I actually think the major effort should be focused on making the beta cells more hardy [via genetic modification] as opposed to focusing on the immune system. And there’s a lot of data to support that now, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Indeed, Dr. Liew and Dr. Deng said, “New immunomodulatory strategies to address graft longevity without immunosuppression remain to be established and tested. With reports of therapeutic efficacy of stem cell–derived islet transplantation such as with our study, stem cell–derived therapy without need for immunosuppression would be a meaningful next step in the treatment of this disease.”

The team has now performed the same procedure in two more patients and will report their data “in due course.”

Dr. Liew had no disclosures. Dr. Deng is a scientific adviser at Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Two coauthors are employees of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience. Another is a former employee of Hangzhou Reprogenix Bioscience and is now affiliated with the Hangzhou Institute of Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Four coauthors have patent applications related to this work. Dr. Harlan is chief scientific officer and cofounder of Stability Health. He had no other disclosures.
 

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

MADRID — Airplane travel consistently causes insulin pumps to over-deliver a little over half a unit on takeoff and under-deliver a bit less on landing, new research found.

This phenomenon is due to air bubble formation and reabsorption in the insulin caused by ambient pressure changes in the airplane’s cabin. It has nothing to do with the pump itself and happens with all insulin pumps, including those in hybrid closed-loop systems, Bruce King, MD, said at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The extent to which this affects people with diabetes who use insulin pumps depends on their dose and insulin sensitivity among other factors, but all who fly should be aware of the possibility and take precautions, particularly with children, Dr. King, a pediatric endocrinologist at John Hunter Children’s Hospital, Newcastle, Australia, told this news organization.

“Basically, the pumps are very safe in flight, but they deliver a little bit of extra insulin when you go up and stop delivery when you come back down again. There are a couple of simple steps that people can take to make sure that they don’t have problems during the flight,” he said.

Specifically, he advised that for pumps with tubing, wearers can disconnect just prior to takeoff and reconnect when the plane reaches cruising altitude, about 20 minutes into the flight. The insulin will still come out, but it won’t be delivered to the person, Dr. King said.

On descent, they can disconnect after landing and prime the line to remove the insulin deficit.

With the Omnipod, which can’t be disconnected, the only solution is to eat a small snack on takeoff. And on landing, eat another small snack such as a banana, and give a bolus for it to overcome the blockage of insulin delivery.

In any case, Dr. King said, “One of the most important things is informing people with diabetes about this effect so they’re aware of it and can act appropriately when they fly.”

Asked to comment, Nicholas B. Argento, MD, a practicing endocrinologist in Columbia, Maryland, and author of the American Diabetes Association’s book, “Putting Your Patients on the Pump,” called the issue a “minor effect,” adding, “While I think it would be reasonable to make those changes ... it seems like a lot of effort for a difference of 0.6 units extra on ascent and 0.5 units less on descent.”

He noted there is a risk that the individual might forget to reattach the pump after 20 minutes, leading to hyperglycemia and even diabetic ketoacidosis. Instead, “one could put the pump on suspend for 1 hour on ascent. That would not stop the extra insulin but would net less insulin during that time period.”

And after descent, “you have to walk a lot in most cases, so I don’t think they need to take this into consideration. So many other factors change in air travel that I don’t think this is a significant enough effect to make the effort.”
 

A Known Phenomenon, the Manufacturers Are Aware

This phenomenon has been described previously, including by Dr. King in a 2011 Diabetes Care paper. The new research is among a series of experiments funded by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency in collaboration with the pump manufacturers Medtronic (MiniMed), Tandem (t:slim), and Insulet (Omnipod), primarily aimed at establishing safety parameters for airline pilots with insulin-treated diabetes.

Both the Omnipod DASH and Omnipod 5 User Guides include warnings about unintended insulin delivery during flight, and both advise users to check their blood glucose levels frequently while flying.

In a statement, Jordan Pinsker, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Tandem Diabetes Care, told this news organization, “While it has long been known that routine air travel pressure changes can cause minor fluctuations in insulin pump delivery, the impact of these variations have been found to be generally minor as it relates to glycemic control.”

Dr. Pinsker added that the Tandem Mobi user manual includes a warning related to significant pressure changes in specific air travel situations and offers guidance to disconnect. However, “the t:slim X2 pump’s microdelivery technology limits how much extra insulin can get delivered from air pressure changes due to a mechanism between the tubing and the contents of the bag inside the cartridge.”

Medtronic’s user guide says that the 780G system has not been tested at altitudes higher than 10,150 feet.
 

Hypobaric Chamber Used to Simulate Flight

The study was conducted in vitro, in a hypobaric chamber designed to mimic atmospheric changes during commercial flight. A total of 10 Medtronic MiniMed 780G, 10 Tandem t:slim X2, and six Insulet Omnipod DASH pumps were tested.

The hypobaric chamber was depressurized to 550 mm Hg over a 20-minute ascent, maintained at a 30-minute cruise, followed by a 20-minute descent to ground (750 mm Hg). During the simulated flights, insulin infusion was set at 0.6 units per hour, a rate typical for both adults and children, to allow accurate measurements with multiple flights.

Insulin delivery rates and bubble formation were recorded by attaching infusion sets to open-ended 100 µL capillary tubes against 1-mm grid paper.

Full cartridges — Medtronic: 3 mL, t:slim: 3 mL, and Omnipod: 2 mL — all over-delivered 0.60 units of insulin over a 20-minute ascent compared with delivery at ground level. And during descent, the cartridges under-delivered 0.51 units of insulin.
 

But if There’s Rapid Decompression…

In a separate protocol, insulin infusion sets without pumps were tested in a simulation of rapid decompression. Insulin delivery during both ascent and descent showed statistically significant differences compared with delivery at ground level (both P < .001). In this scenario, fluid delivery was equivalent to 5.6 units of excess insulin.

Dr. King pointed out that while these are rare events, about 40-50 occur annually. One was the widely publicized Alaska Airlines flight in January 2024 when the door fell off in midair.

Dr. Argento said, “The catastrophic decompression is of note, and I would want patients to be aware of this, but it is asking a lot for someone thinking they are going to die to remember to disconnect as it starts.”

The researchers are investigating this phenomenon further in people, including airline pilots.

Dr. King’s research group has been involved in research with Medtronic, Tandem, and Insulet. Dr. Argento has consulted or been on advisory boards for Eli Lilly Diabetes, Dexcom, Diabeloop, Convatec, and Senseonics and served on the speakers’ bureaus for Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly Diabetes, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Xeris, and Zealand Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Airplane travel consistently causes insulin pumps to over-deliver a little over half a unit on takeoff and under-deliver a bit less on landing, new research found.

This phenomenon is due to air bubble formation and reabsorption in the insulin caused by ambient pressure changes in the airplane’s cabin. It has nothing to do with the pump itself and happens with all insulin pumps, including those in hybrid closed-loop systems, Bruce King, MD, said at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The extent to which this affects people with diabetes who use insulin pumps depends on their dose and insulin sensitivity among other factors, but all who fly should be aware of the possibility and take precautions, particularly with children, Dr. King, a pediatric endocrinologist at John Hunter Children’s Hospital, Newcastle, Australia, told this news organization.

“Basically, the pumps are very safe in flight, but they deliver a little bit of extra insulin when you go up and stop delivery when you come back down again. There are a couple of simple steps that people can take to make sure that they don’t have problems during the flight,” he said.

Specifically, he advised that for pumps with tubing, wearers can disconnect just prior to takeoff and reconnect when the plane reaches cruising altitude, about 20 minutes into the flight. The insulin will still come out, but it won’t be delivered to the person, Dr. King said.

On descent, they can disconnect after landing and prime the line to remove the insulin deficit.

With the Omnipod, which can’t be disconnected, the only solution is to eat a small snack on takeoff. And on landing, eat another small snack such as a banana, and give a bolus for it to overcome the blockage of insulin delivery.

In any case, Dr. King said, “One of the most important things is informing people with diabetes about this effect so they’re aware of it and can act appropriately when they fly.”

Asked to comment, Nicholas B. Argento, MD, a practicing endocrinologist in Columbia, Maryland, and author of the American Diabetes Association’s book, “Putting Your Patients on the Pump,” called the issue a “minor effect,” adding, “While I think it would be reasonable to make those changes ... it seems like a lot of effort for a difference of 0.6 units extra on ascent and 0.5 units less on descent.”

He noted there is a risk that the individual might forget to reattach the pump after 20 minutes, leading to hyperglycemia and even diabetic ketoacidosis. Instead, “one could put the pump on suspend for 1 hour on ascent. That would not stop the extra insulin but would net less insulin during that time period.”

And after descent, “you have to walk a lot in most cases, so I don’t think they need to take this into consideration. So many other factors change in air travel that I don’t think this is a significant enough effect to make the effort.”
 

A Known Phenomenon, the Manufacturers Are Aware

This phenomenon has been described previously, including by Dr. King in a 2011 Diabetes Care paper. The new research is among a series of experiments funded by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency in collaboration with the pump manufacturers Medtronic (MiniMed), Tandem (t:slim), and Insulet (Omnipod), primarily aimed at establishing safety parameters for airline pilots with insulin-treated diabetes.

Both the Omnipod DASH and Omnipod 5 User Guides include warnings about unintended insulin delivery during flight, and both advise users to check their blood glucose levels frequently while flying.

In a statement, Jordan Pinsker, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Tandem Diabetes Care, told this news organization, “While it has long been known that routine air travel pressure changes can cause minor fluctuations in insulin pump delivery, the impact of these variations have been found to be generally minor as it relates to glycemic control.”

Dr. Pinsker added that the Tandem Mobi user manual includes a warning related to significant pressure changes in specific air travel situations and offers guidance to disconnect. However, “the t:slim X2 pump’s microdelivery technology limits how much extra insulin can get delivered from air pressure changes due to a mechanism between the tubing and the contents of the bag inside the cartridge.”

Medtronic’s user guide says that the 780G system has not been tested at altitudes higher than 10,150 feet.
 

Hypobaric Chamber Used to Simulate Flight

The study was conducted in vitro, in a hypobaric chamber designed to mimic atmospheric changes during commercial flight. A total of 10 Medtronic MiniMed 780G, 10 Tandem t:slim X2, and six Insulet Omnipod DASH pumps were tested.

The hypobaric chamber was depressurized to 550 mm Hg over a 20-minute ascent, maintained at a 30-minute cruise, followed by a 20-minute descent to ground (750 mm Hg). During the simulated flights, insulin infusion was set at 0.6 units per hour, a rate typical for both adults and children, to allow accurate measurements with multiple flights.

Insulin delivery rates and bubble formation were recorded by attaching infusion sets to open-ended 100 µL capillary tubes against 1-mm grid paper.

Full cartridges — Medtronic: 3 mL, t:slim: 3 mL, and Omnipod: 2 mL — all over-delivered 0.60 units of insulin over a 20-minute ascent compared with delivery at ground level. And during descent, the cartridges under-delivered 0.51 units of insulin.
 

But if There’s Rapid Decompression…

In a separate protocol, insulin infusion sets without pumps were tested in a simulation of rapid decompression. Insulin delivery during both ascent and descent showed statistically significant differences compared with delivery at ground level (both P < .001). In this scenario, fluid delivery was equivalent to 5.6 units of excess insulin.

Dr. King pointed out that while these are rare events, about 40-50 occur annually. One was the widely publicized Alaska Airlines flight in January 2024 when the door fell off in midair.

Dr. Argento said, “The catastrophic decompression is of note, and I would want patients to be aware of this, but it is asking a lot for someone thinking they are going to die to remember to disconnect as it starts.”

The researchers are investigating this phenomenon further in people, including airline pilots.

Dr. King’s research group has been involved in research with Medtronic, Tandem, and Insulet. Dr. Argento has consulted or been on advisory boards for Eli Lilly Diabetes, Dexcom, Diabeloop, Convatec, and Senseonics and served on the speakers’ bureaus for Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly Diabetes, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Xeris, and Zealand Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Airplane travel consistently causes insulin pumps to over-deliver a little over half a unit on takeoff and under-deliver a bit less on landing, new research found.

This phenomenon is due to air bubble formation and reabsorption in the insulin caused by ambient pressure changes in the airplane’s cabin. It has nothing to do with the pump itself and happens with all insulin pumps, including those in hybrid closed-loop systems, Bruce King, MD, said at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The extent to which this affects people with diabetes who use insulin pumps depends on their dose and insulin sensitivity among other factors, but all who fly should be aware of the possibility and take precautions, particularly with children, Dr. King, a pediatric endocrinologist at John Hunter Children’s Hospital, Newcastle, Australia, told this news organization.

“Basically, the pumps are very safe in flight, but they deliver a little bit of extra insulin when you go up and stop delivery when you come back down again. There are a couple of simple steps that people can take to make sure that they don’t have problems during the flight,” he said.

Specifically, he advised that for pumps with tubing, wearers can disconnect just prior to takeoff and reconnect when the plane reaches cruising altitude, about 20 minutes into the flight. The insulin will still come out, but it won’t be delivered to the person, Dr. King said.

On descent, they can disconnect after landing and prime the line to remove the insulin deficit.

With the Omnipod, which can’t be disconnected, the only solution is to eat a small snack on takeoff. And on landing, eat another small snack such as a banana, and give a bolus for it to overcome the blockage of insulin delivery.

In any case, Dr. King said, “One of the most important things is informing people with diabetes about this effect so they’re aware of it and can act appropriately when they fly.”

Asked to comment, Nicholas B. Argento, MD, a practicing endocrinologist in Columbia, Maryland, and author of the American Diabetes Association’s book, “Putting Your Patients on the Pump,” called the issue a “minor effect,” adding, “While I think it would be reasonable to make those changes ... it seems like a lot of effort for a difference of 0.6 units extra on ascent and 0.5 units less on descent.”

He noted there is a risk that the individual might forget to reattach the pump after 20 minutes, leading to hyperglycemia and even diabetic ketoacidosis. Instead, “one could put the pump on suspend for 1 hour on ascent. That would not stop the extra insulin but would net less insulin during that time period.”

And after descent, “you have to walk a lot in most cases, so I don’t think they need to take this into consideration. So many other factors change in air travel that I don’t think this is a significant enough effect to make the effort.”
 

A Known Phenomenon, the Manufacturers Are Aware

This phenomenon has been described previously, including by Dr. King in a 2011 Diabetes Care paper. The new research is among a series of experiments funded by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency in collaboration with the pump manufacturers Medtronic (MiniMed), Tandem (t:slim), and Insulet (Omnipod), primarily aimed at establishing safety parameters for airline pilots with insulin-treated diabetes.

Both the Omnipod DASH and Omnipod 5 User Guides include warnings about unintended insulin delivery during flight, and both advise users to check their blood glucose levels frequently while flying.

In a statement, Jordan Pinsker, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Tandem Diabetes Care, told this news organization, “While it has long been known that routine air travel pressure changes can cause minor fluctuations in insulin pump delivery, the impact of these variations have been found to be generally minor as it relates to glycemic control.”

Dr. Pinsker added that the Tandem Mobi user manual includes a warning related to significant pressure changes in specific air travel situations and offers guidance to disconnect. However, “the t:slim X2 pump’s microdelivery technology limits how much extra insulin can get delivered from air pressure changes due to a mechanism between the tubing and the contents of the bag inside the cartridge.”

Medtronic’s user guide says that the 780G system has not been tested at altitudes higher than 10,150 feet.
 

Hypobaric Chamber Used to Simulate Flight

The study was conducted in vitro, in a hypobaric chamber designed to mimic atmospheric changes during commercial flight. A total of 10 Medtronic MiniMed 780G, 10 Tandem t:slim X2, and six Insulet Omnipod DASH pumps were tested.

The hypobaric chamber was depressurized to 550 mm Hg over a 20-minute ascent, maintained at a 30-minute cruise, followed by a 20-minute descent to ground (750 mm Hg). During the simulated flights, insulin infusion was set at 0.6 units per hour, a rate typical for both adults and children, to allow accurate measurements with multiple flights.

Insulin delivery rates and bubble formation were recorded by attaching infusion sets to open-ended 100 µL capillary tubes against 1-mm grid paper.

Full cartridges — Medtronic: 3 mL, t:slim: 3 mL, and Omnipod: 2 mL — all over-delivered 0.60 units of insulin over a 20-minute ascent compared with delivery at ground level. And during descent, the cartridges under-delivered 0.51 units of insulin.
 

But if There’s Rapid Decompression…

In a separate protocol, insulin infusion sets without pumps were tested in a simulation of rapid decompression. Insulin delivery during both ascent and descent showed statistically significant differences compared with delivery at ground level (both P < .001). In this scenario, fluid delivery was equivalent to 5.6 units of excess insulin.

Dr. King pointed out that while these are rare events, about 40-50 occur annually. One was the widely publicized Alaska Airlines flight in January 2024 when the door fell off in midair.

Dr. Argento said, “The catastrophic decompression is of note, and I would want patients to be aware of this, but it is asking a lot for someone thinking they are going to die to remember to disconnect as it starts.”

The researchers are investigating this phenomenon further in people, including airline pilots.

Dr. King’s research group has been involved in research with Medtronic, Tandem, and Insulet. Dr. Argento has consulted or been on advisory boards for Eli Lilly Diabetes, Dexcom, Diabeloop, Convatec, and Senseonics and served on the speakers’ bureaus for Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly Diabetes, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Xeris, and Zealand Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID — Emerging data points to the urgent need for cardiovascular risk reduction in all adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including those who are young and those diagnosed in adulthood.

At the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting, two entire oral abstract sessions were devoted to research examining cardiovascular risk specifically in people with T1D. There is increasing evidence that as with type 2 diabetes (T2D), clinical visits need to focus on other cardiovascular risk factors and glucose.

Findings included the evidence of severe coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic adults with T1D, increased risks for mortality and cardiac events in people diagnosed with T1D in adulthood, and a greater cardiovascular risk for those with overweight/obesity and among those with more cumulative exposure to both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.

One speaker, Dr. Rebecka Johanna Bergdal, of the Folkhälsan Research Center and the University of Helsinki, Finland, issued a “call to action,” saying, “We call on healthcare professionals to continue supporting and encouraging individuals with T1D towards better management of diabetes, including both glucose and lipid management.”

Session Moderator Krzysztof Strojek, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Cardiometabolic Diseases at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that all the data point in the same direction for T1D management, to “look not only at A1c and blood glucose control but also lipids, hypertension, smoking status, all these risk factors recognized in type 2 ... are also important in T1D.”
 

The ‘Alarming’ Finding of CAD in Asymptomatic Patients

Michal Dubsky, MD, PhD, of the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic, presented findings from 62 asymptomatic patients with T1D for > 10 years (mean, 36 years), with a mean A1c of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and no prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They had slightly elevated CVD biomarkers, including a mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 2.33 mmol/L, lipoprotein (a) level of 15 nmol/L, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 125.3 ng/L. 

All underwent a noninvasive carotid ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. Of those, 12 patients had a CAC score > 400 and/or presence of two or more carotid plaques identified as high-risk.

Those 12 patients underwent coronary angiography and had a total of 29 vessels examined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), “an invasive intravascular method for assessing coronary atherosclerosis that is far more sensitive than standard coronary angiography, especially for the detection of high-risk vulnerable plaques without a hemodynamically significant stenosis,” Dr. Dubsky explained.

Coronary angiography showed obstructive CAD in 5 of the 12 patients. Their mean calcium score was 950 and mean number of carotid plaques was 2.8. Features associated with plaque vulnerability included microphage accumulation in 24 vessels, lipid-rich plaques in 23, spotty calcium in 19, and neovascularizations in 13.

Thin-cap fibroatheroma, a strong predictor of plaque rupture, was present in 7 of the 12 patients (58.3%), and four had features of very high-risk plaques, defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma with a minimal lumen area < 3.5 mm², a lipid arch > 180 degrees, and macrophages. 

“Our study showed that asymptomatic T1D patients with high CAC score and carotid plaques had very severe OCT findings. We observed a significant proportion of high-risk lesions potentially associated with plaque rupture and risk of CV death. Therefore, we believe these patients should be treated as very high-risk with target LDL below 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg/dL), even though they are completely asymptomatic,” Dr. Dubsky concluded.

He added that because OCT is invasive and costly, the CAC score can be used to guide the decision for statin use, with any score above 100 considered elevated risk. 

Study coauthor Martin Haluzik, MD, professor of internal medicine in the Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, told this news organization, “I think it’s very alarming because some of these are basically very healthy-looking young people, so you don’t really expect them to have significant cardiovascular complications already or significant plaques. I think it shows that we should be more proactive in looking into the risk of cardiovascular complications and in looking into the early cardiovascular changes.”
 

Later Diagnosis Doesn’t Always Protect: Risk Seen in Adult-Onset T1D

Yuxia Wei, a PhD student at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, presented an analysis of data from Sweden’s national health databases comparing cardiovascular outcomes between 10,184 people diagnosed with T1D at ages 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and ≥ 40 years; another 375,523 people diagnosed with T2D at those ages; and 509,172 population controls matched for age, sex, and county.

Those diagnosed after age 40 years had higher A1c levels and were less likely to be using insulin pumps than those diagnosed at younger adult ages. 

Compared with population controls, at a median of about 7 years of follow-up, people with T1D had significantly higher all-cause mortality at all diagnosis age groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.71. This rose to 2.78 for those diagnosed at age 30-39 years.

Compared with those with T2D, the mortality risks weren’t significantly different at any age, but the risks for non-cardiovascular death, including from cancer and infection, were significantly higher among those diagnosed after age 40 years (1.31 overall). Those diagnosed with T1D at any adult age had lower risks for major cardiovascular events than those diagnosed with T2D. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.27 for those diagnosed at age 18-29 years to 0.78 for those diagnosed after the age of 40 years.

Smoking and A1c above target were the greatest contributors to mortality. Those two factors, along with body mass index (BMI), were the strongest contributors to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

“Adult-onset T1D carries excess risk of death and cardiovascular disease, without obvious attenuation over age at diagnosis…Smoking, A1c, and BMI are the key factors to be managed to improve prognosis in adult-onset T1D,” Ms. Wei concluded.
 

BMI: Often Overlooked in T1D, but a Major CVD Risk Factor

Two studies examined the link between overweight/obesity and cardiovascular risk in T1D. One, by Laurence Salle, MCU PH, of the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases Department at CHU Limoges, France, was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 2367 people with T1D at 68 centers in France who didn’t have a cardiovascular history at baseline.

Of those, 51% had normal BMI (18.5-24.9), 31% had overweight (25-29.9), and 18% had obesity (≥ 30). Cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and hypertension increased with an increasing BMI. The 10-year CVD risk was significantly higher for those with overweight (9.61%) and obesity (9.93%) than for those with normal weight (7.24%), in both men and women. 

However, BMI was found to be an independent predictor of 10-year high cardiovascular risk in men but not women, while waist:height ratio independently predicted risk in both men and women, Dr. Salle reported.

The second BMI study, from Enrique Soto-Pedre, MBBS, of the Division of Population Health and Genomics at the University of Dundee, Scotland, presented data on a retrospective follow-up from 1995 to 2019 of 1973 people with T1D aged > 18 years at diagnosis (42% women; mean age, 34.2 years; 18.9% had obesity.

After 10 years of follow-up, those with overweight and obesity had significantly higher odds of developing arterial hypertension, even among those taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, with statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios of 1.73 and 3.37 for the obese and overweight groups, respectively. 

MACE were significantly more common among those with obesity, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.95, as was acute myocardial infarction, 3.33. 

“These results emphasize the importance of incorporating weight management into the overall management of individuals with T1D. No one has doubts about weight management in T2D, but in type 1, it’s not so clear. One of the main [concerns] would be safety [in terms of hypoglycemia],” Dr. Soto-Pedre concluded. 
 

Call for Action: Cumulative Glucose and Lipid Exposures Increase Risk

Dr. Bergdal presented data on the effects of cumulative glycemia and lipids on the risk for CAD in 3495 adults with T1D who had been diagnosed prior to the age of 40 years. The history of CAD or stroke was exclusion criteria. There were a total of 534 CAD events within a median follow-up of 19.4 years.

Cumulative glycemia, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposures were all significantly associated with CAD risk (P < .001 for all). With an adjustment for confounders, the highest tertile of glycemia was associated with a twofold increased risk for CAD. Both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia were independently associated with CAD risk, Dr. Bergdal reported. 

“It’s important to minimize the time spent above A1c 7%, and lipid management in T1D must not be forgotten,” she said, prior to issuing her call for action.

Dr. Haluzik reported receiving honoraria for talks and/or consultancy and/or research funding from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Ypsomed, and Johnson & Johnson. The presenters had no disclosures.
 

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

MADRID — Emerging data points to the urgent need for cardiovascular risk reduction in all adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including those who are young and those diagnosed in adulthood.

At the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting, two entire oral abstract sessions were devoted to research examining cardiovascular risk specifically in people with T1D. There is increasing evidence that as with type 2 diabetes (T2D), clinical visits need to focus on other cardiovascular risk factors and glucose.

Findings included the evidence of severe coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic adults with T1D, increased risks for mortality and cardiac events in people diagnosed with T1D in adulthood, and a greater cardiovascular risk for those with overweight/obesity and among those with more cumulative exposure to both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.

One speaker, Dr. Rebecka Johanna Bergdal, of the Folkhälsan Research Center and the University of Helsinki, Finland, issued a “call to action,” saying, “We call on healthcare professionals to continue supporting and encouraging individuals with T1D towards better management of diabetes, including both glucose and lipid management.”

Session Moderator Krzysztof Strojek, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Cardiometabolic Diseases at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that all the data point in the same direction for T1D management, to “look not only at A1c and blood glucose control but also lipids, hypertension, smoking status, all these risk factors recognized in type 2 ... are also important in T1D.”
 

The ‘Alarming’ Finding of CAD in Asymptomatic Patients

Michal Dubsky, MD, PhD, of the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic, presented findings from 62 asymptomatic patients with T1D for > 10 years (mean, 36 years), with a mean A1c of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and no prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They had slightly elevated CVD biomarkers, including a mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 2.33 mmol/L, lipoprotein (a) level of 15 nmol/L, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 125.3 ng/L. 

All underwent a noninvasive carotid ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. Of those, 12 patients had a CAC score > 400 and/or presence of two or more carotid plaques identified as high-risk.

Those 12 patients underwent coronary angiography and had a total of 29 vessels examined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), “an invasive intravascular method for assessing coronary atherosclerosis that is far more sensitive than standard coronary angiography, especially for the detection of high-risk vulnerable plaques without a hemodynamically significant stenosis,” Dr. Dubsky explained.

Coronary angiography showed obstructive CAD in 5 of the 12 patients. Their mean calcium score was 950 and mean number of carotid plaques was 2.8. Features associated with plaque vulnerability included microphage accumulation in 24 vessels, lipid-rich plaques in 23, spotty calcium in 19, and neovascularizations in 13.

Thin-cap fibroatheroma, a strong predictor of plaque rupture, was present in 7 of the 12 patients (58.3%), and four had features of very high-risk plaques, defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma with a minimal lumen area < 3.5 mm², a lipid arch > 180 degrees, and macrophages. 

“Our study showed that asymptomatic T1D patients with high CAC score and carotid plaques had very severe OCT findings. We observed a significant proportion of high-risk lesions potentially associated with plaque rupture and risk of CV death. Therefore, we believe these patients should be treated as very high-risk with target LDL below 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg/dL), even though they are completely asymptomatic,” Dr. Dubsky concluded.

He added that because OCT is invasive and costly, the CAC score can be used to guide the decision for statin use, with any score above 100 considered elevated risk. 

Study coauthor Martin Haluzik, MD, professor of internal medicine in the Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, told this news organization, “I think it’s very alarming because some of these are basically very healthy-looking young people, so you don’t really expect them to have significant cardiovascular complications already or significant plaques. I think it shows that we should be more proactive in looking into the risk of cardiovascular complications and in looking into the early cardiovascular changes.”
 

Later Diagnosis Doesn’t Always Protect: Risk Seen in Adult-Onset T1D

Yuxia Wei, a PhD student at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, presented an analysis of data from Sweden’s national health databases comparing cardiovascular outcomes between 10,184 people diagnosed with T1D at ages 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and ≥ 40 years; another 375,523 people diagnosed with T2D at those ages; and 509,172 population controls matched for age, sex, and county.

Those diagnosed after age 40 years had higher A1c levels and were less likely to be using insulin pumps than those diagnosed at younger adult ages. 

Compared with population controls, at a median of about 7 years of follow-up, people with T1D had significantly higher all-cause mortality at all diagnosis age groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.71. This rose to 2.78 for those diagnosed at age 30-39 years.

Compared with those with T2D, the mortality risks weren’t significantly different at any age, but the risks for non-cardiovascular death, including from cancer and infection, were significantly higher among those diagnosed after age 40 years (1.31 overall). Those diagnosed with T1D at any adult age had lower risks for major cardiovascular events than those diagnosed with T2D. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.27 for those diagnosed at age 18-29 years to 0.78 for those diagnosed after the age of 40 years.

Smoking and A1c above target were the greatest contributors to mortality. Those two factors, along with body mass index (BMI), were the strongest contributors to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

“Adult-onset T1D carries excess risk of death and cardiovascular disease, without obvious attenuation over age at diagnosis…Smoking, A1c, and BMI are the key factors to be managed to improve prognosis in adult-onset T1D,” Ms. Wei concluded.
 

BMI: Often Overlooked in T1D, but a Major CVD Risk Factor

Two studies examined the link between overweight/obesity and cardiovascular risk in T1D. One, by Laurence Salle, MCU PH, of the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases Department at CHU Limoges, France, was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 2367 people with T1D at 68 centers in France who didn’t have a cardiovascular history at baseline.

Of those, 51% had normal BMI (18.5-24.9), 31% had overweight (25-29.9), and 18% had obesity (≥ 30). Cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and hypertension increased with an increasing BMI. The 10-year CVD risk was significantly higher for those with overweight (9.61%) and obesity (9.93%) than for those with normal weight (7.24%), in both men and women. 

However, BMI was found to be an independent predictor of 10-year high cardiovascular risk in men but not women, while waist:height ratio independently predicted risk in both men and women, Dr. Salle reported.

The second BMI study, from Enrique Soto-Pedre, MBBS, of the Division of Population Health and Genomics at the University of Dundee, Scotland, presented data on a retrospective follow-up from 1995 to 2019 of 1973 people with T1D aged > 18 years at diagnosis (42% women; mean age, 34.2 years; 18.9% had obesity.

After 10 years of follow-up, those with overweight and obesity had significantly higher odds of developing arterial hypertension, even among those taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, with statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios of 1.73 and 3.37 for the obese and overweight groups, respectively. 

MACE were significantly more common among those with obesity, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.95, as was acute myocardial infarction, 3.33. 

“These results emphasize the importance of incorporating weight management into the overall management of individuals with T1D. No one has doubts about weight management in T2D, but in type 1, it’s not so clear. One of the main [concerns] would be safety [in terms of hypoglycemia],” Dr. Soto-Pedre concluded. 
 

Call for Action: Cumulative Glucose and Lipid Exposures Increase Risk

Dr. Bergdal presented data on the effects of cumulative glycemia and lipids on the risk for CAD in 3495 adults with T1D who had been diagnosed prior to the age of 40 years. The history of CAD or stroke was exclusion criteria. There were a total of 534 CAD events within a median follow-up of 19.4 years.

Cumulative glycemia, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposures were all significantly associated with CAD risk (P < .001 for all). With an adjustment for confounders, the highest tertile of glycemia was associated with a twofold increased risk for CAD. Both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia were independently associated with CAD risk, Dr. Bergdal reported. 

“It’s important to minimize the time spent above A1c 7%, and lipid management in T1D must not be forgotten,” she said, prior to issuing her call for action.

Dr. Haluzik reported receiving honoraria for talks and/or consultancy and/or research funding from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Ypsomed, and Johnson & Johnson. The presenters had no disclosures.
 

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

MADRID — Emerging data points to the urgent need for cardiovascular risk reduction in all adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), including those who are young and those diagnosed in adulthood.

At the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 Annual Meeting, two entire oral abstract sessions were devoted to research examining cardiovascular risk specifically in people with T1D. There is increasing evidence that as with type 2 diabetes (T2D), clinical visits need to focus on other cardiovascular risk factors and glucose.

Findings included the evidence of severe coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic adults with T1D, increased risks for mortality and cardiac events in people diagnosed with T1D in adulthood, and a greater cardiovascular risk for those with overweight/obesity and among those with more cumulative exposure to both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia.

One speaker, Dr. Rebecka Johanna Bergdal, of the Folkhälsan Research Center and the University of Helsinki, Finland, issued a “call to action,” saying, “We call on healthcare professionals to continue supporting and encouraging individuals with T1D towards better management of diabetes, including both glucose and lipid management.”

Session Moderator Krzysztof Strojek, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Internal Medicine, Diabetology and Cardiometabolic Diseases at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that all the data point in the same direction for T1D management, to “look not only at A1c and blood glucose control but also lipids, hypertension, smoking status, all these risk factors recognized in type 2 ... are also important in T1D.”
 

The ‘Alarming’ Finding of CAD in Asymptomatic Patients

Michal Dubsky, MD, PhD, of the Diabetes Centre, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic, presented findings from 62 asymptomatic patients with T1D for > 10 years (mean, 36 years), with a mean A1c of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and no prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They had slightly elevated CVD biomarkers, including a mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 2.33 mmol/L, lipoprotein (a) level of 15 nmol/L, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level of 125.3 ng/L. 

All underwent a noninvasive carotid ultrasound and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. Of those, 12 patients had a CAC score > 400 and/or presence of two or more carotid plaques identified as high-risk.

Those 12 patients underwent coronary angiography and had a total of 29 vessels examined by optical coherence tomography (OCT), “an invasive intravascular method for assessing coronary atherosclerosis that is far more sensitive than standard coronary angiography, especially for the detection of high-risk vulnerable plaques without a hemodynamically significant stenosis,” Dr. Dubsky explained.

Coronary angiography showed obstructive CAD in 5 of the 12 patients. Their mean calcium score was 950 and mean number of carotid plaques was 2.8. Features associated with plaque vulnerability included microphage accumulation in 24 vessels, lipid-rich plaques in 23, spotty calcium in 19, and neovascularizations in 13.

Thin-cap fibroatheroma, a strong predictor of plaque rupture, was present in 7 of the 12 patients (58.3%), and four had features of very high-risk plaques, defined as thin-cap fibroatheroma with a minimal lumen area < 3.5 mm², a lipid arch > 180 degrees, and macrophages. 

“Our study showed that asymptomatic T1D patients with high CAC score and carotid plaques had very severe OCT findings. We observed a significant proportion of high-risk lesions potentially associated with plaque rupture and risk of CV death. Therefore, we believe these patients should be treated as very high-risk with target LDL below 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg/dL), even though they are completely asymptomatic,” Dr. Dubsky concluded.

He added that because OCT is invasive and costly, the CAC score can be used to guide the decision for statin use, with any score above 100 considered elevated risk. 

Study coauthor Martin Haluzik, MD, professor of internal medicine in the Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic, told this news organization, “I think it’s very alarming because some of these are basically very healthy-looking young people, so you don’t really expect them to have significant cardiovascular complications already or significant plaques. I think it shows that we should be more proactive in looking into the risk of cardiovascular complications and in looking into the early cardiovascular changes.”
 

Later Diagnosis Doesn’t Always Protect: Risk Seen in Adult-Onset T1D

Yuxia Wei, a PhD student at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, presented an analysis of data from Sweden’s national health databases comparing cardiovascular outcomes between 10,184 people diagnosed with T1D at ages 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and ≥ 40 years; another 375,523 people diagnosed with T2D at those ages; and 509,172 population controls matched for age, sex, and county.

Those diagnosed after age 40 years had higher A1c levels and were less likely to be using insulin pumps than those diagnosed at younger adult ages. 

Compared with population controls, at a median of about 7 years of follow-up, people with T1D had significantly higher all-cause mortality at all diagnosis age groups, with a hazard ratio of 1.71. This rose to 2.78 for those diagnosed at age 30-39 years.

Compared with those with T2D, the mortality risks weren’t significantly different at any age, but the risks for non-cardiovascular death, including from cancer and infection, were significantly higher among those diagnosed after age 40 years (1.31 overall). Those diagnosed with T1D at any adult age had lower risks for major cardiovascular events than those diagnosed with T2D. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.27 for those diagnosed at age 18-29 years to 0.78 for those diagnosed after the age of 40 years.

Smoking and A1c above target were the greatest contributors to mortality. Those two factors, along with body mass index (BMI), were the strongest contributors to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

“Adult-onset T1D carries excess risk of death and cardiovascular disease, without obvious attenuation over age at diagnosis…Smoking, A1c, and BMI are the key factors to be managed to improve prognosis in adult-onset T1D,” Ms. Wei concluded.
 

BMI: Often Overlooked in T1D, but a Major CVD Risk Factor

Two studies examined the link between overweight/obesity and cardiovascular risk in T1D. One, by Laurence Salle, MCU PH, of the Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Diseases Department at CHU Limoges, France, was a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 2367 people with T1D at 68 centers in France who didn’t have a cardiovascular history at baseline.

Of those, 51% had normal BMI (18.5-24.9), 31% had overweight (25-29.9), and 18% had obesity (≥ 30). Cardiovascular risk factors, including LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and hypertension increased with an increasing BMI. The 10-year CVD risk was significantly higher for those with overweight (9.61%) and obesity (9.93%) than for those with normal weight (7.24%), in both men and women. 

However, BMI was found to be an independent predictor of 10-year high cardiovascular risk in men but not women, while waist:height ratio independently predicted risk in both men and women, Dr. Salle reported.

The second BMI study, from Enrique Soto-Pedre, MBBS, of the Division of Population Health and Genomics at the University of Dundee, Scotland, presented data on a retrospective follow-up from 1995 to 2019 of 1973 people with T1D aged > 18 years at diagnosis (42% women; mean age, 34.2 years; 18.9% had obesity.

After 10 years of follow-up, those with overweight and obesity had significantly higher odds of developing arterial hypertension, even among those taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, with statistically significant adjusted hazard ratios of 1.73 and 3.37 for the obese and overweight groups, respectively. 

MACE were significantly more common among those with obesity, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.95, as was acute myocardial infarction, 3.33. 

“These results emphasize the importance of incorporating weight management into the overall management of individuals with T1D. No one has doubts about weight management in T2D, but in type 1, it’s not so clear. One of the main [concerns] would be safety [in terms of hypoglycemia],” Dr. Soto-Pedre concluded. 
 

Call for Action: Cumulative Glucose and Lipid Exposures Increase Risk

Dr. Bergdal presented data on the effects of cumulative glycemia and lipids on the risk for CAD in 3495 adults with T1D who had been diagnosed prior to the age of 40 years. The history of CAD or stroke was exclusion criteria. There were a total of 534 CAD events within a median follow-up of 19.4 years.

Cumulative glycemia, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposures were all significantly associated with CAD risk (P < .001 for all). With an adjustment for confounders, the highest tertile of glycemia was associated with a twofold increased risk for CAD. Both hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia were independently associated with CAD risk, Dr. Bergdal reported. 

“It’s important to minimize the time spent above A1c 7%, and lipid management in T1D must not be forgotten,” she said, prior to issuing her call for action.

Dr. Haluzik reported receiving honoraria for talks and/or consultancy and/or research funding from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Mundipharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Ypsomed, and Johnson & Johnson. The presenters had no disclosures.
 

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

MADRID — A new consensus statement in development will aim to advise on best practices for navigating the transition of youth with diabetes from pediatric to adult diabetes care, despite limited data.

Expected to be released in early 2025, the statement will be a joint effort of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). It will provide guidance on advance transition planning, the care transfer itself, and follow-up. Writing panel members presented an update on the statement’s development on September 13, 2024, at EASD’s annual meeting.

The care transition period is critical because “adolescents and young adults are the least likely of all age groups to achieve glycemic targets for a variety of physiological and psychosocial reasons ... Up to 60% of these individuals don’t transfer successfully from pediatric to adult care, with declines in attendance, adverse medical outcomes, and mental health challenges,” Frank J. Snoek, PhD, emeritus professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical College, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said in introductory remarks at the EASD session.

Session chair Carine De Beaufort, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, told this news organization, “We know it’s a continuing process, which is extremely important for young people to move into the world. The last formal recommendations were published in 2011, so we thought it was time for an update. What we realized in doing a systematic review and scoping review is that there are a lot of suggestions and ideas not really associated with robust data, and it’s not so easy to get good outcome indicators.”

The final statement will provide clinical guidance but, at the same time, “will be very transparent where more work is needed,” she said.

Sarah Lyons, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, broadly outlined the document. Pre-transition planning will include readiness assessments for transfer from pediatric to adult care. The transfer phase will include measures to prevent gaps in care. And the post-transition phase will cover incorporation into adult care, with follow-up of the individual’s progress for a period.

Across the three stages, the document is expected to recommend a multidisciplinary team approach including psychological support, education and assessment, family and peer support, and care coordination. It will also address practical considerations for patients and professionals including costs and insurance.

It will build upon previous guidelines, including those of ADA and general guidance on transition from pediatric to adult healthcare from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Ideally, this process will be continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, individualized, and developmentally appropriate,” Dr. Lyons said.
 

‘It Shouldn’t Be Just One Conversation ... It Needs to Be a Process’

Asked to comment, ISPAD president David Maahs, MD, the Lucile Salter Packard Professor of Pediatrics and Division Chief of Pediatric Endocrinology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, told this news organization, “It shouldn’t be just one conversation and one visit. It needs to be a process where you talk about the need to transition to adult endocrine care and prepare the person with diabetes and their family for that transition. One of the challenges is if they don’t make it to that first appointment and you assume that they did, and then that’s one place where there can be a gap that people fall through the two systems.”

Dr. Maahs added, “Another issue that’s a big problem in the United States is that children lose their parents’ insurance at 26 ... Some become uninsured after that, or their insurance plan isn’t accepted by the adult provider.”
 

‘There Does Not Appear to Be Sufficient Data’

Steven James, PhD, RN, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Australia, presented the limited data upon which the statement will be based. A systematic literature review yielded just 26 intervention trials looking at care transition for youth with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, including seven clinical trials with only one randomized.

In that trial, in which 205 youth aged 17-20 years were randomized to a structured 18-month transition program with a transition coordinator, the intervention was associated with increased clinic attendance, improved satisfaction with care, and decreased diabetes-related distress, but the benefits weren’t maintained 12 months after completion of the intervention.

The other trials produced mixed results in terms of metabolic outcomes, with improvements in A1c and reductions in diabetic ketoacidosis and hospitalizations seen in some but not others. Healthcare outcomes and utilization, psychosocial outcomes, transition-related knowledge, self-care, and care satisfaction were only occasionally assessed, Dr. James noted.

“The field is lacking empirically supported interventions that can improve patient physiologic and psychologic outcomes, prevent poor clinic attendance, and improve patient satisfaction in medical care ... There still does not appear to be sufficient data related to the impact of transition readiness or transfer-to-adult care programs.”
 

‘Quite a Lot of Variation in Practices Worldwide’

Dr. James also presented results from two online surveys undertaken by the document writing panel. One recently published survey in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice examined healthcare professionals’ experiences and perceptions around diabetes care transitions. Of 372 respondents (75% physicians) from around the world — including a third in low-middle-income countries — fewer than half reported using transition readiness checklists (32.8%), provided written transition information (29.6%), or had a dedicated staff member to aid in the process (23.7%).

Similarly, few involved a psychologist (25.3%) or had a structured transition education program (22.6%). Even in high-income countries, fewer than half reported using these measures. Overall, a majority (91.9%) reported barriers to offering patients a positive transition experience.

“This shows to me that there is quite a lot of variation in practices worldwide ... There is a pressing need for an international consensus transition guideline,” Dr. James said.

Among the respondents’ beliefs, 53.8% thought that discussions about transitioning should be initiated at ages 15-17 years, while 27.8% thought 12-14 years was more appropriate. Large majorities favored use of a transition readiness checklist (93.6%), combined transition clinics (80.6%), having a dedicated transition coordinator/staff member available (85.8%), and involving a psychologist in the transition process (80.6%).

A similar survey of patients and carers will be published soon and will be included in the new statement’s evidence base, Dr. James said.

Dr. Maahs said that endorsement of the upcoming guidance from three different medical societies should help raise the profile of the issue. “Hopefully three professional organizations are able to speak with a united and louder voice than if it was just one group or one set of authors. I think this consensus statement can raise awareness, improve care, and help advocate for better care.”

Dr. De Beaufort, Dr. James, and Dr. Lyons had no disclosures. Dr. Snoek is an adviser/speaker for Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and receives funding from Breakthrough T1D, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Maahs has had research support from the National Institutes of Health, Breakthrough T1D, National Science Foundation, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and his institution has had research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, Tandem, and Roche. He has consulted for Abbott, Aditxt, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, LifeScan, MannKind, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Insulet, Dompe, BioSpex, Provention Bio, Kriya, Enable Biosciences, and Bayer.
 

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

MADRID — A new consensus statement in development will aim to advise on best practices for navigating the transition of youth with diabetes from pediatric to adult diabetes care, despite limited data.

Expected to be released in early 2025, the statement will be a joint effort of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). It will provide guidance on advance transition planning, the care transfer itself, and follow-up. Writing panel members presented an update on the statement’s development on September 13, 2024, at EASD’s annual meeting.

The care transition period is critical because “adolescents and young adults are the least likely of all age groups to achieve glycemic targets for a variety of physiological and psychosocial reasons ... Up to 60% of these individuals don’t transfer successfully from pediatric to adult care, with declines in attendance, adverse medical outcomes, and mental health challenges,” Frank J. Snoek, PhD, emeritus professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical College, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said in introductory remarks at the EASD session.

Session chair Carine De Beaufort, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, told this news organization, “We know it’s a continuing process, which is extremely important for young people to move into the world. The last formal recommendations were published in 2011, so we thought it was time for an update. What we realized in doing a systematic review and scoping review is that there are a lot of suggestions and ideas not really associated with robust data, and it’s not so easy to get good outcome indicators.”

The final statement will provide clinical guidance but, at the same time, “will be very transparent where more work is needed,” she said.

Sarah Lyons, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, broadly outlined the document. Pre-transition planning will include readiness assessments for transfer from pediatric to adult care. The transfer phase will include measures to prevent gaps in care. And the post-transition phase will cover incorporation into adult care, with follow-up of the individual’s progress for a period.

Across the three stages, the document is expected to recommend a multidisciplinary team approach including psychological support, education and assessment, family and peer support, and care coordination. It will also address practical considerations for patients and professionals including costs and insurance.

It will build upon previous guidelines, including those of ADA and general guidance on transition from pediatric to adult healthcare from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Ideally, this process will be continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, individualized, and developmentally appropriate,” Dr. Lyons said.
 

‘It Shouldn’t Be Just One Conversation ... It Needs to Be a Process’

Asked to comment, ISPAD president David Maahs, MD, the Lucile Salter Packard Professor of Pediatrics and Division Chief of Pediatric Endocrinology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, told this news organization, “It shouldn’t be just one conversation and one visit. It needs to be a process where you talk about the need to transition to adult endocrine care and prepare the person with diabetes and their family for that transition. One of the challenges is if they don’t make it to that first appointment and you assume that they did, and then that’s one place where there can be a gap that people fall through the two systems.”

Dr. Maahs added, “Another issue that’s a big problem in the United States is that children lose their parents’ insurance at 26 ... Some become uninsured after that, or their insurance plan isn’t accepted by the adult provider.”
 

‘There Does Not Appear to Be Sufficient Data’

Steven James, PhD, RN, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Australia, presented the limited data upon which the statement will be based. A systematic literature review yielded just 26 intervention trials looking at care transition for youth with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, including seven clinical trials with only one randomized.

In that trial, in which 205 youth aged 17-20 years were randomized to a structured 18-month transition program with a transition coordinator, the intervention was associated with increased clinic attendance, improved satisfaction with care, and decreased diabetes-related distress, but the benefits weren’t maintained 12 months after completion of the intervention.

The other trials produced mixed results in terms of metabolic outcomes, with improvements in A1c and reductions in diabetic ketoacidosis and hospitalizations seen in some but not others. Healthcare outcomes and utilization, psychosocial outcomes, transition-related knowledge, self-care, and care satisfaction were only occasionally assessed, Dr. James noted.

“The field is lacking empirically supported interventions that can improve patient physiologic and psychologic outcomes, prevent poor clinic attendance, and improve patient satisfaction in medical care ... There still does not appear to be sufficient data related to the impact of transition readiness or transfer-to-adult care programs.”
 

‘Quite a Lot of Variation in Practices Worldwide’

Dr. James also presented results from two online surveys undertaken by the document writing panel. One recently published survey in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice examined healthcare professionals’ experiences and perceptions around diabetes care transitions. Of 372 respondents (75% physicians) from around the world — including a third in low-middle-income countries — fewer than half reported using transition readiness checklists (32.8%), provided written transition information (29.6%), or had a dedicated staff member to aid in the process (23.7%).

Similarly, few involved a psychologist (25.3%) or had a structured transition education program (22.6%). Even in high-income countries, fewer than half reported using these measures. Overall, a majority (91.9%) reported barriers to offering patients a positive transition experience.

“This shows to me that there is quite a lot of variation in practices worldwide ... There is a pressing need for an international consensus transition guideline,” Dr. James said.

Among the respondents’ beliefs, 53.8% thought that discussions about transitioning should be initiated at ages 15-17 years, while 27.8% thought 12-14 years was more appropriate. Large majorities favored use of a transition readiness checklist (93.6%), combined transition clinics (80.6%), having a dedicated transition coordinator/staff member available (85.8%), and involving a psychologist in the transition process (80.6%).

A similar survey of patients and carers will be published soon and will be included in the new statement’s evidence base, Dr. James said.

Dr. Maahs said that endorsement of the upcoming guidance from three different medical societies should help raise the profile of the issue. “Hopefully three professional organizations are able to speak with a united and louder voice than if it was just one group or one set of authors. I think this consensus statement can raise awareness, improve care, and help advocate for better care.”

Dr. De Beaufort, Dr. James, and Dr. Lyons had no disclosures. Dr. Snoek is an adviser/speaker for Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and receives funding from Breakthrough T1D, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Maahs has had research support from the National Institutes of Health, Breakthrough T1D, National Science Foundation, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and his institution has had research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, Tandem, and Roche. He has consulted for Abbott, Aditxt, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, LifeScan, MannKind, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Insulet, Dompe, BioSpex, Provention Bio, Kriya, Enable Biosciences, and Bayer.
 

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

MADRID — A new consensus statement in development will aim to advise on best practices for navigating the transition of youth with diabetes from pediatric to adult diabetes care, despite limited data.

Expected to be released in early 2025, the statement will be a joint effort of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). It will provide guidance on advance transition planning, the care transfer itself, and follow-up. Writing panel members presented an update on the statement’s development on September 13, 2024, at EASD’s annual meeting.

The care transition period is critical because “adolescents and young adults are the least likely of all age groups to achieve glycemic targets for a variety of physiological and psychosocial reasons ... Up to 60% of these individuals don’t transfer successfully from pediatric to adult care, with declines in attendance, adverse medical outcomes, and mental health challenges,” Frank J. Snoek, PhD, emeritus professor of medical psychology at Amsterdam University Medical College, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, said in introductory remarks at the EASD session.

Session chair Carine De Beaufort, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, told this news organization, “We know it’s a continuing process, which is extremely important for young people to move into the world. The last formal recommendations were published in 2011, so we thought it was time for an update. What we realized in doing a systematic review and scoping review is that there are a lot of suggestions and ideas not really associated with robust data, and it’s not so easy to get good outcome indicators.”

The final statement will provide clinical guidance but, at the same time, “will be very transparent where more work is needed,” she said.

Sarah Lyons, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, broadly outlined the document. Pre-transition planning will include readiness assessments for transfer from pediatric to adult care. The transfer phase will include measures to prevent gaps in care. And the post-transition phase will cover incorporation into adult care, with follow-up of the individual’s progress for a period.

Across the three stages, the document is expected to recommend a multidisciplinary team approach including psychological support, education and assessment, family and peer support, and care coordination. It will also address practical considerations for patients and professionals including costs and insurance.

It will build upon previous guidelines, including those of ADA and general guidance on transition from pediatric to adult healthcare from the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Ideally, this process will be continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, individualized, and developmentally appropriate,” Dr. Lyons said.
 

‘It Shouldn’t Be Just One Conversation ... It Needs to Be a Process’

Asked to comment, ISPAD president David Maahs, MD, the Lucile Salter Packard Professor of Pediatrics and Division Chief of Pediatric Endocrinology at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, told this news organization, “It shouldn’t be just one conversation and one visit. It needs to be a process where you talk about the need to transition to adult endocrine care and prepare the person with diabetes and their family for that transition. One of the challenges is if they don’t make it to that first appointment and you assume that they did, and then that’s one place where there can be a gap that people fall through the two systems.”

Dr. Maahs added, “Another issue that’s a big problem in the United States is that children lose their parents’ insurance at 26 ... Some become uninsured after that, or their insurance plan isn’t accepted by the adult provider.”
 

‘There Does Not Appear to Be Sufficient Data’

Steven James, PhD, RN, of the University of the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Australia, presented the limited data upon which the statement will be based. A systematic literature review yielded just 26 intervention trials looking at care transition for youth with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, including seven clinical trials with only one randomized.

In that trial, in which 205 youth aged 17-20 years were randomized to a structured 18-month transition program with a transition coordinator, the intervention was associated with increased clinic attendance, improved satisfaction with care, and decreased diabetes-related distress, but the benefits weren’t maintained 12 months after completion of the intervention.

The other trials produced mixed results in terms of metabolic outcomes, with improvements in A1c and reductions in diabetic ketoacidosis and hospitalizations seen in some but not others. Healthcare outcomes and utilization, psychosocial outcomes, transition-related knowledge, self-care, and care satisfaction were only occasionally assessed, Dr. James noted.

“The field is lacking empirically supported interventions that can improve patient physiologic and psychologic outcomes, prevent poor clinic attendance, and improve patient satisfaction in medical care ... There still does not appear to be sufficient data related to the impact of transition readiness or transfer-to-adult care programs.”
 

‘Quite a Lot of Variation in Practices Worldwide’

Dr. James also presented results from two online surveys undertaken by the document writing panel. One recently published survey in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice examined healthcare professionals’ experiences and perceptions around diabetes care transitions. Of 372 respondents (75% physicians) from around the world — including a third in low-middle-income countries — fewer than half reported using transition readiness checklists (32.8%), provided written transition information (29.6%), or had a dedicated staff member to aid in the process (23.7%).

Similarly, few involved a psychologist (25.3%) or had a structured transition education program (22.6%). Even in high-income countries, fewer than half reported using these measures. Overall, a majority (91.9%) reported barriers to offering patients a positive transition experience.

“This shows to me that there is quite a lot of variation in practices worldwide ... There is a pressing need for an international consensus transition guideline,” Dr. James said.

Among the respondents’ beliefs, 53.8% thought that discussions about transitioning should be initiated at ages 15-17 years, while 27.8% thought 12-14 years was more appropriate. Large majorities favored use of a transition readiness checklist (93.6%), combined transition clinics (80.6%), having a dedicated transition coordinator/staff member available (85.8%), and involving a psychologist in the transition process (80.6%).

A similar survey of patients and carers will be published soon and will be included in the new statement’s evidence base, Dr. James said.

Dr. Maahs said that endorsement of the upcoming guidance from three different medical societies should help raise the profile of the issue. “Hopefully three professional organizations are able to speak with a united and louder voice than if it was just one group or one set of authors. I think this consensus statement can raise awareness, improve care, and help advocate for better care.”

Dr. De Beaufort, Dr. James, and Dr. Lyons had no disclosures. Dr. Snoek is an adviser/speaker for Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi and receives funding from Breakthrough T1D, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Maahs has had research support from the National Institutes of Health, Breakthrough T1D, National Science Foundation, and the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and his institution has had research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Insulet, Bigfoot Biomedical, Tandem, and Roche. He has consulted for Abbott, Aditxt, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, LifeScan, MannKind, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Insulet, Dompe, BioSpex, Provention Bio, Kriya, Enable Biosciences, and Bayer.
 

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

The first — but not the last — over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is now available for people older than 18 years who don’t use insulin and who aren’t at a risk for hypoglycemia.

Dexcom’s Stelo is designed specifically for people with type 2 diabetes who don’t use insulin or who have prediabetes but is now available over the counter for anyone for $99 a month or $89 per month with a subscription. It won’t be covered by insurance and there are no financial assistance programs as of now, but people can use healthcare spending accounts to pay for the devices.

As with current CGMs used by people with diabetes who take insulin, the waterproof device is worn on the back of the upper arm and sends real-time glucose values to a smartphone. No finger sticks are required. Each sensor lasts 15 days. Unlike current CGMs, Stelo does not issue low blood sugar alarms.

“We’re excited to empower people to have access to their glucose readings, which we know studies have been done time and time again that giving people continuous glucose monitors helps improve their time in range, their A1c, and their sense of well-being living with diabetes. ... We expect the same improvements with this product that we’ve had with the G series products,” Thomas Grace, MD, Dexcom’s head of Clinical Advocacy and Outcomes, said in an interview at a product launch event held on August 21, 2024.

Dr. Grace is a family physician and medical director of the Diabetes Center, Blanchard Valley Health System, in Findlay, Ohio, where he uses technology extensively in managing patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity. For example, he always starts patients on a CGM before prescribing a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to help them see the effects of both type and quantity of the food they’re eating. “On the back end of that, people are more successful getting off of medications when they have data to support their behaviors and decisions,” he said.

He anticipates the availability of Stelo will help make inroads in bringing CGM technology to primary care. “My hope is that for the places where it hasn’t taken off yet, that patients that now have access to this are the cornerstone for clinicians to see how well people can do when they have the access to that data and that will lead to some impetus for change. In the United States, roughly less than 10% of people with diabetes have CGMs right now.”

The Stelo will soon have competition, as Abbott Diabetes Care will be launching two new over-the-counter CGMs in the coming months. “Since there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to glucose monitoring, Abbott has designed two different products. Lingo is designed for general consumers looking to enhance their overall health and wellness, while Libre Rio is designed for people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin and typically manage their condition through lifestyle changes,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview.

Aaron Neinstein, MD, chief medical officer of Notable, a company that applies artificial intelligence to healthcare, sees a “diminishing debate” regarding the value of CGMs for people beyond those who use insulin. “Metabolic health exists on a wide spectrum, from people who are completely healthy to those at high risk for diabetes due to family history or other medical conditions, to those with insulin resistance, those with prediabetes, those with diabetes not on insulin, and those with diabetes on insulin. So when we talk and think about CGM, we need to consider this wide range of people. The question is in which specific population do the benefits of CGM outweigh costs and any potential harms? Clearly, the farther you go into poor metabolic health, the stronger is the case for CGM.” 

Dr. Neinstein added that “thankfully,” there is no more debate about the value of CGM use for people who use insulin and are therefore at a risk for hypoglycemia. But there is less debate now about even those who don’t take insulin, with emerging evidence that a “CGM provides biofeedback and helps them as a tool to support behavior changes and learning. I hope we will see insurance coverage broaden over time to cover CGM for more of these people who can benefit and who can improve their metabolic health through the use of CGM.”

However, Dr. Neinstein cautioned, “If you go to people who have no medical problems, no insulin resistance, no family history of diabetes, at that point, we do not have evidence that CGM is of health benefit.”

Moreover, he said, “ultimately if you have to choose whether a healthcare dollar goes to CGM or a GLP-1, the GLP-1 is a more impactful choice. In an ideal world, we would be able to support patients in having both, but with the profound benefits from GLP-1s on weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes, and [hemoglobin] A1c reduction and more, they are more potent than using a CGM.”

Dr. Grace is a Dexcom employee. Dr. Neinstein is a full-time employee at Notable, with no current further disclosures.

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

The first — but not the last — over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is now available for people older than 18 years who don’t use insulin and who aren’t at a risk for hypoglycemia.

Dexcom’s Stelo is designed specifically for people with type 2 diabetes who don’t use insulin or who have prediabetes but is now available over the counter for anyone for $99 a month or $89 per month with a subscription. It won’t be covered by insurance and there are no financial assistance programs as of now, but people can use healthcare spending accounts to pay for the devices.

As with current CGMs used by people with diabetes who take insulin, the waterproof device is worn on the back of the upper arm and sends real-time glucose values to a smartphone. No finger sticks are required. Each sensor lasts 15 days. Unlike current CGMs, Stelo does not issue low blood sugar alarms.

“We’re excited to empower people to have access to their glucose readings, which we know studies have been done time and time again that giving people continuous glucose monitors helps improve their time in range, their A1c, and their sense of well-being living with diabetes. ... We expect the same improvements with this product that we’ve had with the G series products,” Thomas Grace, MD, Dexcom’s head of Clinical Advocacy and Outcomes, said in an interview at a product launch event held on August 21, 2024.

Dr. Grace is a family physician and medical director of the Diabetes Center, Blanchard Valley Health System, in Findlay, Ohio, where he uses technology extensively in managing patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity. For example, he always starts patients on a CGM before prescribing a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to help them see the effects of both type and quantity of the food they’re eating. “On the back end of that, people are more successful getting off of medications when they have data to support their behaviors and decisions,” he said.

He anticipates the availability of Stelo will help make inroads in bringing CGM technology to primary care. “My hope is that for the places where it hasn’t taken off yet, that patients that now have access to this are the cornerstone for clinicians to see how well people can do when they have the access to that data and that will lead to some impetus for change. In the United States, roughly less than 10% of people with diabetes have CGMs right now.”

The Stelo will soon have competition, as Abbott Diabetes Care will be launching two new over-the-counter CGMs in the coming months. “Since there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to glucose monitoring, Abbott has designed two different products. Lingo is designed for general consumers looking to enhance their overall health and wellness, while Libre Rio is designed for people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin and typically manage their condition through lifestyle changes,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview.

Aaron Neinstein, MD, chief medical officer of Notable, a company that applies artificial intelligence to healthcare, sees a “diminishing debate” regarding the value of CGMs for people beyond those who use insulin. “Metabolic health exists on a wide spectrum, from people who are completely healthy to those at high risk for diabetes due to family history or other medical conditions, to those with insulin resistance, those with prediabetes, those with diabetes not on insulin, and those with diabetes on insulin. So when we talk and think about CGM, we need to consider this wide range of people. The question is in which specific population do the benefits of CGM outweigh costs and any potential harms? Clearly, the farther you go into poor metabolic health, the stronger is the case for CGM.” 

Dr. Neinstein added that “thankfully,” there is no more debate about the value of CGM use for people who use insulin and are therefore at a risk for hypoglycemia. But there is less debate now about even those who don’t take insulin, with emerging evidence that a “CGM provides biofeedback and helps them as a tool to support behavior changes and learning. I hope we will see insurance coverage broaden over time to cover CGM for more of these people who can benefit and who can improve their metabolic health through the use of CGM.”

However, Dr. Neinstein cautioned, “If you go to people who have no medical problems, no insulin resistance, no family history of diabetes, at that point, we do not have evidence that CGM is of health benefit.”

Moreover, he said, “ultimately if you have to choose whether a healthcare dollar goes to CGM or a GLP-1, the GLP-1 is a more impactful choice. In an ideal world, we would be able to support patients in having both, but with the profound benefits from GLP-1s on weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes, and [hemoglobin] A1c reduction and more, they are more potent than using a CGM.”

Dr. Grace is a Dexcom employee. Dr. Neinstein is a full-time employee at Notable, with no current further disclosures.

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

The first — but not the last — over-the-counter continuous glucose monitor (CGM) is now available for people older than 18 years who don’t use insulin and who aren’t at a risk for hypoglycemia.

Dexcom’s Stelo is designed specifically for people with type 2 diabetes who don’t use insulin or who have prediabetes but is now available over the counter for anyone for $99 a month or $89 per month with a subscription. It won’t be covered by insurance and there are no financial assistance programs as of now, but people can use healthcare spending accounts to pay for the devices.

As with current CGMs used by people with diabetes who take insulin, the waterproof device is worn on the back of the upper arm and sends real-time glucose values to a smartphone. No finger sticks are required. Each sensor lasts 15 days. Unlike current CGMs, Stelo does not issue low blood sugar alarms.

“We’re excited to empower people to have access to their glucose readings, which we know studies have been done time and time again that giving people continuous glucose monitors helps improve their time in range, their A1c, and their sense of well-being living with diabetes. ... We expect the same improvements with this product that we’ve had with the G series products,” Thomas Grace, MD, Dexcom’s head of Clinical Advocacy and Outcomes, said in an interview at a product launch event held on August 21, 2024.

Dr. Grace is a family physician and medical director of the Diabetes Center, Blanchard Valley Health System, in Findlay, Ohio, where he uses technology extensively in managing patients with diabetes, prediabetes, and obesity. For example, he always starts patients on a CGM before prescribing a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to help them see the effects of both type and quantity of the food they’re eating. “On the back end of that, people are more successful getting off of medications when they have data to support their behaviors and decisions,” he said.

He anticipates the availability of Stelo will help make inroads in bringing CGM technology to primary care. “My hope is that for the places where it hasn’t taken off yet, that patients that now have access to this are the cornerstone for clinicians to see how well people can do when they have the access to that data and that will lead to some impetus for change. In the United States, roughly less than 10% of people with diabetes have CGMs right now.”

The Stelo will soon have competition, as Abbott Diabetes Care will be launching two new over-the-counter CGMs in the coming months. “Since there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to glucose monitoring, Abbott has designed two different products. Lingo is designed for general consumers looking to enhance their overall health and wellness, while Libre Rio is designed for people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin and typically manage their condition through lifestyle changes,” an Abbott spokesperson said in an interview.

Aaron Neinstein, MD, chief medical officer of Notable, a company that applies artificial intelligence to healthcare, sees a “diminishing debate” regarding the value of CGMs for people beyond those who use insulin. “Metabolic health exists on a wide spectrum, from people who are completely healthy to those at high risk for diabetes due to family history or other medical conditions, to those with insulin resistance, those with prediabetes, those with diabetes not on insulin, and those with diabetes on insulin. So when we talk and think about CGM, we need to consider this wide range of people. The question is in which specific population do the benefits of CGM outweigh costs and any potential harms? Clearly, the farther you go into poor metabolic health, the stronger is the case for CGM.” 

Dr. Neinstein added that “thankfully,” there is no more debate about the value of CGM use for people who use insulin and are therefore at a risk for hypoglycemia. But there is less debate now about even those who don’t take insulin, with emerging evidence that a “CGM provides biofeedback and helps them as a tool to support behavior changes and learning. I hope we will see insurance coverage broaden over time to cover CGM for more of these people who can benefit and who can improve their metabolic health through the use of CGM.”

However, Dr. Neinstein cautioned, “If you go to people who have no medical problems, no insulin resistance, no family history of diabetes, at that point, we do not have evidence that CGM is of health benefit.”

Moreover, he said, “ultimately if you have to choose whether a healthcare dollar goes to CGM or a GLP-1, the GLP-1 is a more impactful choice. In an ideal world, we would be able to support patients in having both, but with the profound benefits from GLP-1s on weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes, and [hemoglobin] A1c reduction and more, they are more potent than using a CGM.”

Dr. Grace is a Dexcom employee. Dr. Neinstein is a full-time employee at Notable, with no current further disclosures.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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

A multi-institutional partnership has funded six new research projects aimed at developing novel insulin analogs that more closely mimic the action of a healthy pancreas. 

The Type 1 Diabetes Grand Challenge comprises Diabetes UK, JDRF (now called “Breakthrough T1D” in the United States), and the Steve Morgan Foundation. It will provide a total of £50 million (about $64 million in US dollars) for type 1 diabetes research, including £15 million (~$19 million) for six separate projects on novel insulins to be conducted at universities in the United States, Australia, and China. Four will aim to develop glucose-responsive “smart” insulins, another one ultrafast-acting insulin, and the sixth a product combining insulin and glucagon. 

“Even with the currently available modern insulins, people living with type 1 diabetes put lots of effort into managing their diabetes every day to find a good balance between acceptable glycemic control on the one hand and avoiding hypoglycemia on the other. The funded six new research projects address major shortcomings in insulin therapy,” Tim Heise, MD, vice-chair of the project’s Novel Insulins Scientific Advisory Panel, said in a statement from the Steve Morgan Foundation. 

All six projects are currently in the preclinical stage, Dr. Heise said, noting that “the idea behind the funding program is to help the most promising research initiatives to reach the clinical stage.”

Glucose-responsive, or so-called “smart,” insulins are considered the holy grail because they would become active only to prevent hyperglycemia and remain dormant otherwise, thereby not causing hypoglycemia as current insulin analogs can. The idea isn’t new. In 2010, there was excitement in the type 1 diabetes community when the pharmaceutical company Merck acquired a smaller company called SmartCells that had been working on a “smart insulin” for several years. But nothing came of that. 

“The challenges then and today are pretty similar. In particular, it is quite difficult to find a glucose-sensing moiety that is safe, reacts sufficiently to relatively small changes in the human body in both falling and increasing glucose, and can be produced in large quantities,” Dr. Heise, lead scientist and co-founder of the diabetes contract research organization Profil, based in Neuss, Germany, told this news organization.

Several papers since have reported proof-of-concept in rodents, but there are no published data thus far in humans. However, in recent years the major insulin manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly have acquired smaller companies with the aim of smart insulin development. 

It will still take some time, Dr. Heise said. “The challenges are well understood, although difficult to overcome. There has been quite some progress in the development of glucose-sensing moieties including, but not limited to, nanotechnological approaches.”

Applications for the newly funded projects “were thoroughly reviewed by a large panel of scientists with different areas of expertise. At the end, there was agreement in the review panel that these projects deserved further investigation, although considering their early stage, there still is a substantial risk of failure for all these projects,” he said. 

The development path might be a bit more straightforward for the other two projects. Ultra–fast-acting insulin is needed because the action of the current ones, Novo Nordisk’s Fiasp and Eli Lilly and Company’s Lyumjev, is still delayed, potentially leading to postmeal hyperglycemia if administered after or immediately prior to eating. “A truly rapid short-acting insulin might make it finally possible to progress from hybrid to fully closed loop systems, allowing a technological ‘cure’ for people with diabetes,” Dr. Heise said in the statement. 

And a protein combining insulin with glucagon could help minimize the risk for hypoglycemia, which still exists for current insulin analogs and remains “one of the major concerns associated with insulin therapy today,” he noted. 

Dr. Heise told this news organization that compared with “smart” insulin, development of the other two products “might be a bit faster if they succeed. But none of these approaches will make it to market in the next 5 years, and if one entered clinic within the next 2 years, that would be a huge success.” Nonetheless, “these research projects, if successful, might do no less than heralding a new era in insulin therapy.”

Dr. Heise is an employee of Profil, which has worked with a large number of the major diabetes industry manufacturers.

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